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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 1 amended
Claims 32-35 withdrawn
Claims 2, 5-7, 11, 19-24 and 27 canceled
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-18, 25-26, 28-31 and 36-37 pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 28 states “wherein the mechanically foamed mixture is obtained by mechanical stirring at high speeds”. Where claim 28 depend on claim 1, which state “b) mechanically foaming said mixture by high speed mechanical stirring”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 25-26, 28-31 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (PG Pub 2012/0100289 A1) and in view of Lottenbach (PG Pub 2019/0062571 A1), and in further view Ashida (PG Pub 2018/0056625 A1) and with Glenn (PG Pub 2012/0270029 A1, as evidentiary support).
Consider Claim 1, Egan teaches the process of forming and applying a composition to a surface of the substrate (abstract) a foam composition [0003], Step (A) the composition comprises mixture of: plurality of particles [0003], flame retardant particles [0005], and binder including cross-linking agent [0006] and additional filler such as surfactant [0037] as foam stabilizer; where the plurality of particles include pre-expanded polymer [0013], such as polyurethane [0014], and the flame retardant particles additive include ammonium phosphate (halogen free) [0017], and the cross-linking agent include chemical reagent [0025], and the chemical reagent include polycarbodiimide cross-linker [0026]. Where the binder used for the composition is an aqueous dispersion form [0021], leading to having polyurethane aqueous dispersion as part of the composition. Egan does not explicitly teach that the ammonium phosphate to be uncoated, however it will be obvious for skilled person in the art (since the prior art of Egan is silence regarding the coating) that the used ammonium phosphate is un-coated ammonium phosphate fire retardant.
Egan does not disclose Step (B) including mechanically forming the mixture.
However, Lottenbach is in the prior art of coating a paste (as flame retardant coating) the paste include a binder and foam stabilizer and solvent [0023], where the binder is a water dispersion of polyurethane [0025], and includes a cross-linking agent [0029], teaches the mechanically mixing the mixture using stirring ([0023], and claim 1-c), as Step (b).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Egan with Lottenbach to mechanically foam and makes the above mixture ingredients, to provide with a homogeneous mixture with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
The combined Egan (with Lottenbach) teaches Step (C) the application of the foam composition onto the surface (Egan, [0003]).
The combined Egan (with Lottenbach) teaches Step (D) the drying/curing at an ambient temperature ranging from -40°C to 65°C (Egan, [0042]), where the coating composition is curing/crosslinking the crosslinking agents (Egan, [0042]) crosslinking agents include chemical reagents (Egan, [0025]) such as polycarbodiimide materials (Egan, [0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
The combined Egan (with Lottenbach) does not teach the detailed claimed process of the foaming step.
However, Ashida is in the process of forming foamed sheet (abstract), which includes additives such as flame retarded [0069], such as ammonium polyphosphate [0076], and also includes crosslinkers such as polycarbodiimide compound [0058], teaches the mechanical stirring using air using Oakes mixer [0102], as a foaming step [0099].
Where the “Oakes mixer” is known to mechanically mix at high speed/RPM at (for example) 1941 (as evidence with Glenn, [0135],and table 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Egan (with Lottenbach) with Ashida to mechanically stir at high speed, to provide with a desired foaming magnification between 1.2 5 times [0102].
Consider Claim 4, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the foam density is between 150-600 g/l (Lottenbach, [0044]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 8, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the composition include an aqueous dispersion of the cross-linker agent/chemical reagent of the polycarbodiimide (Egan, [0026]).
Consider Claim 9, he combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the composition include a mixture of polycarbodiimide cross-linkers with an aziridnes cross-linker (Egan, [0026]).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the foam retardant coating amount for surface area is about 20-400 g/m2 (Lottenbach, [0046]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 12, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the amount of polyurethane is 30-70% wt. (Lottenbach, [0025]), and the amount of flame retardant (red phosphorus) is 5-20% wt. (flame retardant) (Lottenbach, [0042]). Leading to ratio of polyurethane to flame retardant of 60:40 to 85:15. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 13, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the flame retardant particles additive include ammonium phosphate and with an addition of ammonium polyphosphate (Egan, [0017]).
Consider Claim 14, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the optional addition of expandable graphite/intumescent material to the composition (Egan, [0017]), therefore the use of expandable graphite/intumescent material would be obvious not required/present in the composition.
Consider Claim 15, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the adding of expandable graphite/intumescent material to the composition (Egan, [0017]). Where it would be obvious for skilled person in art to adjust the amount of the expandable graphene as little as desired and not exceeding the claimed amount of 20% by weight based on the formulation, to adjust the properties of the flame retardants.
Consider Claim 18, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the foam retardant coating amount for surface area in about 20-400 g/m2 (Lottenbach, [0046]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 25-26, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the composition have a binder, and the binder used for the composition is an aqueous dispersion form (Egan, [0021]), leading to having polyurethane aqueous dispersion as part of the composition, and the polyurethane dispersion is water/aqueous polyurethane dispersion (Lottenbach, [0025]), with solid content of 30-70% by wt. (Lottenbach, [0025]). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 28, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the mechanically mixing with stirring (Lottenbach, [0023], and Ashida [0102]).
Consider Claims 29-30, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the substrate is non-rigid/woven textile (Lottenbach, [0050]).
Consider Claim 31, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the foam coating to include fluorocarbon/fluorochemical of 0.1-10% wt. (Lottenbach, [0039]), encompassing 0.1-1.0 % wt. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 36, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the optional addition of expandable graphite/intumescent material to the composition (Egan, [0017]), therefore the use of expandable graphite/intumescent material would be obvious not required/present in the composition.
Consider Claim 37, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the adding of expandable graphite/intumescent material to the composition (Egan, [0017]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (PG Pub 2012/0100289 A1) and in view of Lottenbach (PG Pub 2019/0062571 A1), and in further view Ashida (PG Pub 2018/0056625 A1), and in further view of Nair (PG Pub 2018/0051152 A1).
Consider Claim 3, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the process of coating the mixer foam dispersion onto the substrate, as Step (C), and the curing/drying of the coated substrate, as Step (D), per claim 1 above.
The combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) does not teach an intermediate step between step (c) and step (d) for adding flocking fiber.
However, Nair is in the prior art of applying a foamable aqueous dispersion to a porous substrate (abstract), porous substrate such as woven textile [0149], teaches the process of flocking (applying flocked fiber, or very short fiber) the foamed aqueous that is disposed on the porous substrate (as after the coating step), and before the drying step [0154].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) with Nair to add flocking fiber after the coating step (c) and before the drying step (d), to provide with an attractive finish to the coated product [0154].
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egan (PG Pub 2012/0100289 A1) and in view of Lottenbach (PG Pub 2019/0062571 A1), and in further view Ashida (PG Pub 2018/0056625 A1), and in further view of Chereau (PG Pub 2008/0182040 A1).
Consider Claims 16-17, the combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) teaches the use of surfactant as foam stabilizer per claim 1 above.
The combined Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) does not teach the claimed surfactants.
However, Chereau is in the process of coating a substrate/ particulate with dispersion materials (abstract) which includes thermoplastic polymer and stabilizing compound (abstract), where the thermoplastic polymer includes polyurethane [0072], where the stabilizing compound include foam stabilizer [0109], and the addition of additives such as fire-retardant material [0070], teaches the foam stabilizer include surfactant [0060], such as cationic surfactants, anionic surfactants, or non-ionic surfactants [0064], and the foam stabilizer to include salt of carboxylic acid, having carboxylic fragment (R–CO2–) where the carbons are less than 25 carbon atom, and where the salt’s cationic (X) is alkali metal cationic (including Na, K) [0061].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Egan (with Lottenbach and Ashida) with Chereau and use the above surfactants, to promote the formation of a stable dispersion or emulsion [0060].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-18, 25-26, 28-31 and 36-37 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Egan with Lottenbach and Ashida.
The applicant argued against Egan, on the ground that “the rejection alleges that Egan teaches drying and curing at an ambient temperature ranging from -40 to 65℃. The rejection significantly misquotes Egan at [0042], which actually states a curing temperature of the ambient temperature of an attic ranging from -40 to 150℃.”.
However, Egan discloses that temperature and from -40 to 150 Fahrenheit degree, not in Celsius degree. Where this range is equivalent to -40 to 65 degrees Celsius. As this range encompass 0°C to 65°C of the claimed drying temperature.
The applicant argued also against the prior art of Egan, on the ground that Egan discloses the use of “pre-expanded particle materials” in [0004] as part of the binder, as this pre-expanded particles include between 50 to 99 of air, therefore there would not need any motivation for mechanic foaming step of Lottenbach.
However, Egan discloses that the specific limitation is an “example” of the pre-expanded polymers [0004], [0013]. Additionally, those pre-expanded polymer can also include polymer that is “capable of further expansion” [0013], therefore this “further expansion” allow the use of a mechanical expansion tool such as of Lottenbach’s process to fully expand Egan’s pre-expanded polymers.
The applicant argued against the drying/curing step on the ground that Egan’s process is designed for attic, since almost any ambient temperature can be used for drying and curing. Also, thanks application low temperature drying when coupled with the polycarbodiimide cross-linker with makes it possible to provide cross-linking during drying at low temperature.
However, the instant application does not claim a substrate that is not suitable for attic, as claim 30 include material would be suitable for attic usage, such as woven textile, non-woven textile as those would be reasonably suited for attic insulating/fire retardant material. Moreover, the prior art of Egan also discloses the curing using the specific cross-linking material “polycarbodiimide” cross-linker and at the same drying and curing (argued as low temperature) range.
The applicant argued against the prior art of Egan, on the ground that Egan discloses crosslinking polycarbodiimide only once, and discloses many other different cross linker material, and the combination of. Where the instant application discloses the selection of polycarbodiimide which is related to low temperature controlled curing rate.
However, although Egan discloses plurality of cross-linkers it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art with known engineering skills to experiment with each and every cross-linking material which would include the polycarbodiimide material which is cured and dried at the same temperature range, that is claimed.
The applicant argued against “uncoated ammonium phosphate” flame retardant, on the ground that Egan does not explicitly state that “uncoated” property.
However, as stated above it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person art that the ammonium phosphate is uncoated as the additional “coated” properties would add additional advantages, over the “uncoated” ammonium phosphate particles. Therefore, it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in art to understand that the absent of the “coated” feature would encompass that the ammonium phosphate particles are “uncoated”.
The applicant argued against the prior arts combination used in the above rejection on the ground that is provided with an expected advantages such as energy and cost saving, water resistance, flame resistance, porous structure with breathability, low coating weight, preservation of high temperature, soft and supply fabric field without stiffness.
However, most of these properties are disclosed already in Egan, such as; flame retardant properties [0037], low weight coating properties [0016], installation of high temperature/heat reflector [0007] breathability [0016], sound damping properties [0021].
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718