RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 are pending in the application, claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims filed on October 21, 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
REJECTIONS
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/431,754 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application ‘754 claims a similar electric vechicle battery pack.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7 and 8, Application ‘754 claims a flexible thermal insulator for an electric vehicle battery pack, consisting of a composite wall including a sheet of flame-resistant material having opposite first and second sides, pressure sensitive adhesive layer bonded to said first side of said sheet of flame-resistant material, a silicone rubber layer (claim 8) bonded directly to said second side of said flame-resistant material (claim 1) and a release film releasably fixed to said pressure sensitive adhesive layer (claim 5). Application ‘754 claims the PSA is an acrylic (claim 7). Application ‘754 claims the flexible thermal insulator has a max thickness of 2 mm (claim 14).
Regarding claim 11, Application ‘754 claims an electric vehicle battery pack consisting of a housing, a plurality of cells bounded by said housing; and a plurality of composite walls, each of said composite walls including: a sheet of fire-resistant material having opposite first and second sides; a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer bonded to said first side of said sheet of fire-resistant material; and a silicone rubber layer (claim 16) bonded directly to said second side of said fire-resistant material, wherein at least some of said composite walls separate adjacent ones of said cells from one another (claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/712,702(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application ‘702 claims a similar electric vechicle battery pack.
Regarding claim 1, Application ‘702 claims a flexible thermal insulator for an electric vehicle battery pack, consisting of a composite wall including a sheet of flame-resistant material having opposite first and second sides, pressure sensitive adhesive layer bonded to said first side of said sheet of flame-resistant material, a silicone rubber layer (claim 7) bonded directly to said second side of said flame-resistant material (claim 1) and a release film releasably fixed to said pressure sensitive adhesive layer (claim 12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “a first pressure sensitive adhesive” in claim 11 is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. The composite wall “consists of” (1) a first PSA, (2) a sheet of fire-resistant material and (3) a silicone rubber. Indicating that the PSA layer is the first layer implies that there are more than one PSA layers. Thus, there appears to be a conflict with the use of “consisting of” and the use of multiple PSA layers.
The limitation “a release film releasably fixed to said first pressure sensitive adhesive layer, said release film being configured to be removed to expose the underlying first pressure sensitive adhesive layer for operable fixation to a surface of said housing” in claim 12 is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the composite wall “consists” the release film or battery pack has a release film in the housing. It is further unclear if claim 12 is claiming battery pack and a composite wall, i.e. a kit, or that the composite walls are in the battery pack housing.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0050476) in view of Dugan et al. (US Patent No. 4,994,317) and Ibrahim (US Patent No. 3,861,912).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 1, Zheng discloses a flexible thermal insulator (thermal acoustic insulation) used in an aircraft’s fuselage to create a barrier to prevent or reduce the transfer of heat and/or flames (para. [0002]).
The flexible thermal insulator consisting of a composite wall (burn through resistant laminate film, ref. #150, figure 4). The composite wall consists of (1) a second film (para. [0045], ref. #108, figure 4), (2) a sheet of flame-resistant material, and (3) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0039] and [0047], ref. #152, figure 4). The sheet of flame-resistant material comprises an adhesive layer, glass layer, adhesive layer and a first film (para. [0029], figure 4). The pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded to the first side of the sheet of flame-resistant material and second film is bonded directly to the second side of said flame- resistant material (figure 4).
Zheng fails to disclose the second film is a silicone rubber.
Dugan teaches a flame durable fire barrier fabric comprising used to prevent the combustion of flammable materials by placing the fabric between the heat source and any flammable materials (col. 1, lines 8-10). The barrier fabric comprises a woven textile fabric substrate (col. 2, line 59) and a flexible silicone polymer layer (col. 3, line 7). The silicone layer provides a flame durable surface to protect the underlying flammable materials and serves as a barrier to hot gases which could cause ignition (col. 3, lines 19-26). Suitable silicones are liquid silicone rubbers (col. 3, line 53), which are durable, easy to apply, flexible and relatively lightweight, and have minimal affect to flexibility to the barrier fabric (col. 3, lines 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use a silicone rubber as the second film of Zheng as taught by Dugan because silicone rubber serves as a barrier to hot gases which could cause ignition and are durable, easy to apply, flexible and relatively lightweight, and have minimal affect to flexibility to the barrier fabric.
Zheng further fails to disclose a release film.
Ibrahim teaches an adhesive article (electrophotographic reproduction label, abstract) comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive with a peelable protective release sheet or liner releasably applied over the adhesive to protect it (col. 1, lines 20-24). Therefore, the release film is configured to be removed to expose the underlying pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a release film releasably fixed to the pressure sensitive adhesive layer of Zheng as taught by Ibrahim in order to protect the adhesive before use.
The preamble “for an electric vehicle battery pack” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 5, the wall prevents flame propagation when exposed to 1000 °C for 10 minutes, since Zheng discloses the glass cloth can resist 1100 °C heat and can prevent flame penetration for more than 15 minutes (para. [0015]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 6, although the combination of Zheng and Dugan do not explicitly teach the limitations the wall has an electrical insulation resistance of 4000 Mohm or greater…”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials used to produce the wall. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 7 and 8, the combination of Zheng, Dugan and Ibrahim fail to disclose the maximum thickness of the wall. Zheng further discloses the weaving process cause the glass cloth to have decreased thickness (para. [0014]) and the first and second films can have a thickness of 3-9 µm, but can be increased or decreased (para. [0045]).
While the prior art does not disclose the maximum thickness of the wall, such a value is not considered critical. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific surface is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the sufficient application of the adhesive treatment is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the surface roughness of the metal layer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface roughness of the metal layer in the prior art combination to obtain the desired adhesive application (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 9, although the combination of Zheng and Dugan do not explicitly teach the limitations the wall has a dielectric strength of 2kV after…”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials used to produce the wall. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
Claims 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0050476) in view of Fernando et al. (US Patent No. 10,434,755) and Ibrahim (US Patent No. 3,861,912).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 2, Zheng discloses a flexible thermal insulator (thermal acoustic insulation) used in an aircraft’s fuselage to create a barrier to prevent or reduce the transfer of heat and/or flames (para. [0002]).
The flexible thermal insulator consisting of a composite wall (burn through resistant laminate film, ref. #150, figure 4). The composite wall consists of a (1) polyether ether ketone (second film, para. [0045], ref. #108, figure 4), (2) a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0038] and [0039], ref. #104, figure 4), (3) a sheet flame-resistant material, and (4) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0039] and [0047], ref. #152, figure 4). The sheet of flame-resistant material comprises a glass layer, adhesive layer and a first film (para. [0029], figure 4).
The first pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded directly to the first side of the sheet of flame-resistant material, the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded directly to the second side of said sheet of flame-resistant material and the polyether ether ketone layer is bonded directly to the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (figure 4).
Zheng fails to disclose the wall includes a scrim reinforcing the polyether ether ketone.
Fernando discloses flexible thermal insulator (fire barrier film laminate, title) for commercial aircrafts to provide improved burn through protection and flame propagation resistance (col. 1, lines 13-17). The flexible thermal insulator comprising composite wall including (1) a scrim reinforced (col. 6, line 42, ref. #108, figure 1B), polyether ether ketone (second film, col. 6, lines 43-44, ref. #110, figure 1B), (2) a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 1, col. 6, lines 44-45, ref. #112, figure 1B), (3) a sheet flame-resistant material (fire barrier layer, col. 6, lines 30-31, ref. #102, figure 1B), and (4) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (encapsulating adhesive, col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 1, ref. #116, figure 1B). The scrim layer adds strength to the laminate, including puncture or tear resistance (col. 5, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a scrim to reinforce the polyether ether ketone layer of Zheng as taught by Fernando because the scrim layer adds strength to the flexible thermal insulator, such as puncture or tear resistance.
Zheng and Fernando fail to disclose a release film.
Ibrahim teaches an adhesive article (electrophotographic reproduction label, abstract) comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive with a peelable protective release sheet or liner releasably applied over the adhesive to protect it (col. 1, lines 20-24). Therefore, the release film is configured to be removed to expose the underlying pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a release film releasably fixed to the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer of Zheng as taught by Ibrahim in order to protect the adhesive before use.
The preamble “for an electric vehicle battery pack” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 4, Zheng discloses that the first and second pressure sensitive adhesive layers are made of acrylic (para. [0038] and [0047]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 10, Zheng discloses that the sheet of flame-resistant material is a woven sheet of silica multifilament yarns (para. [0015] and figures 2A and 2B).
Claims 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0074960) in view of Zheng et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0050476) and Dugan et al. (US Patent No. 4,994,317).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 11, Stude discloses an electric vehicle battery pack consisting of a housing, a plurality of cells bounded by said housing, and a plurality of insulating walls and at least some of the insulating walls separate adjacent cells (figure 3). The walls ate for thermal insulation and fire protection (para. [0052]).
Stude fails to disclose the claimed composite wall.
Zheng discloses a flexible thermal insulator (thermal acoustic insulation) used in an aircraft’s fuselage to create a barrier to prevent or reduce the transfer of heat and/or flames (para. [0002]). The thermal insulator provides burnthrough resistant laminate films with superior strength, tear resistance, flexibility, scratch resistance, and water/solvent resistance (para. [0011]).
The flexible thermal insulator consisting of a composite wall (burn through resistant laminate film, ref. #150, figure 4). The composite wall consists of (1) a second film (para. [0045], ref. #108, figure 4), (2) a sheet of flame-resistant material, and (3) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0039] and [0047], ref. #152, figure 4). The sheet of flame-resistant material comprises an adhesive layer, glass layer, adhesive layer and a first film (para. [0029], figure 4). The pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded to the first side of the sheet of flame-resistant material and second film is bonded directly to the second side of said flame- resistant material (figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use the thermal insulator material of Zheng as the insulating walls Stude, because the thermal insulator of Zheng provides burnthrough resistant laminate films with superior strength, tear resistance, flexibility, scratch resistance, and water/solvent resistance.
Stude and Zheng fail to disclose the second film is a silicone rubber.
Dugan teaches a flame durable fire barrier fabric comprising used to prevent the combustion of flammable materials by placing the fabric between the heat source and any flammable materials (col. 1, lines 8-10). The barrier fabric comprises a woven textile fabric substrate (col. 2, line 59) and a flexible silicone polymer layer (col. 3, line 7). The silicone layer provides a flame durable surface to protect the underlying flammable materials and serves as a barrier to hot gases which could cause ignition (col. 3, lines 19-26). Suitable silicones are liquid silicone rubbers (col. 3, line 53), which are durable, easy to apply, flexible and relatively lightweight, and have minimal affect to flexibility to the barrier fabric (col. 3, lines 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use a silicone rubber as the second film of Zheng as taught by Dugan because silicone rubber serves as a barrier to hot gases which could cause ignition and are durable, easy to apply, flexible and relatively lightweight, and have minimal affect to flexibility to the barrier fabric.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 15, the wall prevents flame propagation when exposed to 1000 °C for 10 minutes, since Zheng discloses the glass cloth can resist 1100 heat °C and can prevent flame penetration for more than 15 minutes (para. [0015]).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 16, although the combination of Zheng and Dugan do not explicitly teach the limitations the wall has an electrical insulation resistance of 4000 Mohm or greater…”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials used to produce the wall. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 17, the combination of Stude, Zheng and Dugan fail to disclose the maximum thickness of the wall. Zheng further discloses the weaving process cause the glass cloth to have decreased thickness (para. [0014]) and the first and second films can have a thickness of 3-9 µm, but can be increased or decreased (para. [0045]).
While the prior art does not disclose the maximum thickness of the wall, such a value is not considered critical. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific surface is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the sufficient application of the adhesive treatment is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the surface roughness of the metal layer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface roughness of the metal layer in the prior art combination to obtain the desired adhesive application (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 18, although the combination of Stude, Zheng and Dugan do not explicitly teach the limitations the wall has a dielectric strength of 2kV after…”, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials used to produce the wall. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 19 and 20, Zheng discloses that the sheet of flame-resistant material is a woven sheet of silica multifilament yarns (para. [0015] and figures 2A and 2B).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0074960) in view of Zheng et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0050476), Fernando et al. (US Patent No. 10,434,755) and Ibrahim (US Patent No. 3,861,912).
Regarding Applicant’s claim 12, Stude discloses an electric vehicle battery pack consisting of a housing, a plurality of cells bounded by said housing, and a plurality of insulating walls and at least some of the insulating walls separate adjacent cells (figure 3). The walls ate for thermal insulation and fire protection (para. [0052]).
Stude fails to disclose the claimed composite wall.
Zheng discloses a flexible thermal insulator (thermal acoustic insulation) used in an aircraft’s fuselage to create a barrier to prevent or reduce the transfer of heat and/or flames (para. [0002]). The thermal insulator provides burnthrough resistant laminate films with superior strength, tear resistance, flexibility, scratch resistance, and water/solvent resistance (para. [0011]).
The flexible thermal insulator consisting of a composite wall (burn through resistant laminate film, ref. #150, figure 4). The composite wall consists of a (1) polyether ether ketone (second film, para. [0045], ref. #108, figure 4), (2) a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0038] and [0039], ref. #104, figure 4), (3) a sheet flame-resistant material, and (4) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (para. [0039] and [0047], ref. #152, figure 4). The sheet of flame-resistant material comprises a glass layer, adhesive layer and a first film (para. [0029], figure 4).
The first pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded directly to the first side of the sheet of flame-resistant material, the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer is bonded directly to the second side of said sheet of flame-resistant material and the polyether ether ketone layer is bonded directly to the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use the thermal insulator material of Zheng as the insulating walls Stude, because the thermal insulator of Zheng provides burnthrough resistant laminate films with superior strength, tear resistance, flexibility, scratch resistance, and water/solvent resistance.
Stude and Zheng fail to disclose the wall includes a scrim reinforcing the polyether ether ketone.
Fernando discloses flexible thermal insulator (fire barrier film laminate, title) for commercial aircrafts to provide improved burn through protection and flame propagation resistance (col. 1, lines 13-17). The flexible thermal insulator comprising composite wall including (1) a scrim reinforced (col. 6, line 42, ref. #108, figure 1B), polyether ether ketone (second film, col. 6, lines 43-44, ref. #110, figure 1B), (2) a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer (col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 1, col. 6, lines 44-45, ref. #112, figure 1B), (3) a sheet flame-resistant material (fire barrier layer, col. 6, lines 30-31, ref. #102, figure 1B), and (4) a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer (encapsulating adhesive, col. 5, line 67-col. 6, line 1, ref. #116, figure 1B). The scrim layer adds strength to the laminate, including puncture or tear resistance (col. 5, lines 49-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a scrim to reinforce the polyether ether ketone layer of Zheng as taught by Fernando because the scrim layer adds strength to the flexible thermal insulator, such as puncture or tear resistance.
Stude, Zheng and Fernando fail to disclose a release film.
Ibrahim teaches an adhesive article (electrophotographic reproduction label, abstract) comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive with a peelable protective release sheet or liner releasably applied over the adhesive to protect it (col. 1, lines 20-24). Therefore, the release film is configured to be removed to expose the underlying pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a release film releasably fixed to the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer of Zheng as taught by Ibrahim in order to protect the adhesive before use.
Regarding Applicant’s claim 14, Zheng discloses that the first and second pressure sensitive adhesive layers are made of acrylic (para. [0038] and [0047]).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in paper the response filed October, 2025 regarding the 103 rejections of record have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
For claims 1, 2, 11 and 12, applicant argues that at least one layer of Zheng would have to be eliminated to arrive at the instant claim invention of the independent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 2, 11and 12 states that the composite wall consisting of “a sheet of fire-resistant material”. The sheet of fire-resistant material is not limited to a single layer. Therefore, even though Zheng composite wall includes additional layers not recited in the claim, it is within the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Chevalier whose telephone number is (571)272-1490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 5:00.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/12/2026