DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 (all pending claims) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakrout et al (US 2022/0259371) in view of (a) Gann et al (US 2014/0343183) and (b) Zheng et al (US 2009/0155603).
Lakrout teaches a multilayer composite (abstract) comprising a first foam layer comprising a polyurethane-based matrix component (abstract), and a flame retardant filler component (0061), and a second layer (herein understood to read on the claimed first barrier layer) comprising a material selected from the group consisting of non-woven glass fabric (0072) or other fibers described in the reference (0072) including silica fiber (0052). The fibers may be in the form of a fabric (0072).
Lakrout teaches the second material may comprise glass fiber, but does not teach said layer should comprise mica. However, Zheng teaches a fire resistant glass matt having enhanced flame and fire resistance properties (abstract) wherein the mat may comprise up to 30wt% mica (0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the mica containing glass matt of Zheng in place of the glass fiber fabric disclosed in Lakrout because Zheng teaches said materials exhibit excellent flame and fire resistance.
Lakrout also does not teach the foam composition should have a HBF flammability rating as measured according to ASTM D4986. However, Gann teaches a highly flame retardant and thermally stable polyurethane foam composition (abstract) and a flame retardant filler (see claims). Gann further teaches said foam has a HBF flammability rating as measured using ASTM D4986 (Table 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the polyurethane foam of Gann in place of the polyurethane foam taught in Lakrout; the motivation for doing so would have been to improve the flame and fire resistance of the composite.
With regards to claim 2, Gann teaches the polyurethane-based matrix component comprises a flexible polyurethane (0036) reacted from isocyanate and polyol (0157).
With regards to claim 3, Gann teaches the foam may comprise expanded graphite or phosphorous compounds (see claim 11).
With regards to claim 4, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a polyurethane-based matrix component content of at least about 40 wt.% and not greater than about 95 wt.% for a total weight of the first foam layer (see claims 10 and 11).
With regards to claim 5, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a flame retardant filler component content of at least about 5 wt.% and not greater than about 60 wt.% for a total weight of the first foam layer (see claims 10 and 11).
With regards to claim 6, Gann teaches the first foam layer comprises a HBF flammability rating as measured according to ASTM D4986 (see Table 6).
With regards to claim 7, it is known in the art that the heat barrier properties of a composite is increases with thickness. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the foam in order to achieve the desired barrier properties, including obtaining a cold side temperature of not greater than about 300 °C as measured at 5 minutes when exposed to a hotplate test at 650 °C.
With regards to claim 8, Lakrout teaches the thickness of the foam may have a thickness of 0.125-1 inch (102)-herein understood to read on the claimed “at least about 0.5 mm and not greater than about 10 mm.”
With regards to claim 9, Lakrout teaches thickness of the composite is less than 2inches (claim 59-herein understood to read on the claimed “thickness of at least about 0.5 mm and not greater than about 10 mm.”
With regards to claim 11, Lakrout teaches the first barrier layer has a thickness of 0.01-0.05 inches (0074)-herein understood to read on the claimed thickness of “0.05 mm and not greater than about 7 mm.”
With regards to claim 12, Lakrout teaches the multilayer composite may further comprises a second barrier layer and wherein the first foam layer is between the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer (0071).
With regards to claim 13, Lakrout does not teach the multilayer composite may further comprises a second foam layer and a second barrier layer, wherein the second for a layer comprises a polyurethane-based matrix component and a flame retardant filler component, and wherein the first foam layer and the second foam layer are both between the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer. However, the courts have held that he mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights