DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “wherein the size of at least one particle….is greater than 500…and wherein less than 10% of the particles have a size greater than 500”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27 – 31, 35, and 36 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.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” particles recited in each instance in Claims 16 (Lines 10 and 12), 24, 26, 29, 31, 35, and 36. Independent Claim 16 now sets forth “particles embedded in the foamed matrix material”, “a first particle”, “a second particle”, and “a third particle”. It is then unclear to which of these particles the phrase refers. For the purposes of further examination, “the” particles recited in the aforementioned claims will refer to all particles embedded in the foamed matrix material.
As all other pending claims ultimately depend on Claim 16, they incorporate the subject matter thereof and are therefore also rejected under this statute.
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 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0049618 to Lista et al. (hereinafter Lista) in view of US 6,096,416 to Altenberg (hereinafter Altenberg), as evidenced by “GrafGuard® Flame Retardant Additive – Technical Data Sheet 226” to NeoGraf® Solutions (hereinafter NeoGraf®).
Regarding Claims 16, 24, 25, and 27 – 29. Lista teaches a household appliance comprising an insulation element which is applied to at least one component thereof ([0011], [0016], and [0017]). The components may specifically be the drum and door of the appliance [0079], i.e. receiving regions of the devices.
The insulation element is specifically a viscoelastic polyurethane foam which provides acoustic insulation ([0011] – [0015]). The reaction mixture for preparing the viscoelastic polyurethane foam may comprise a flame retardant [0041] and such flame retardant will thus be embedded and evenly distributed in the foamed viscoelastic polyurethane matrix.
The foam is prepared by foaming an unfoamed matrix material [0032], wherein the inventive examples are prepared from unfoamed matrix materials having densities of 300 or 500 kg/m3 (see Formulations 1 and 2 in table in first column of Page 5). The foamed matrix material may have a density of 100 to 150 kg/m3 [0045].
Lista does not expressly teach the flame retardant corresponds to particles with intumescent properties. However, Altenberg teaches the concept of providing intumescent expandable graphite, such as that sold as GrafGuard® in foamed polyurethane insulation (Column 4, Lines 38 – 47). NeoGraf® provides evidence that GrafGuard® expandable graphites have a physical densities in the range of 1.8 to 2.2 g/cm3 (1800 to 2200 g/cm3) (Page 2). NeoGraf® provides further evidence that GrafGuard® expandable graphites have particle sizes of less than 500 microns (0.5 mm) (see graphs on Page 4) and typical sizing of at least 65% on 50 mesh (Page 4), corresponding to 65% of the particles being smaller than 297 microns. The at least 65% of particles in GrafGuard® having a size smaller than 297 microns would be reasonably expected to have a different mass than the remainder of the particles, corresponding to particles having different masses. As mass and resonance frequency are interrelated properties, the particles would be reasonably expected to comprise particles having particle frequencies which are different, corresponding to a first resonant frequency between a first particle and a second particle that is different from a second resonant frequency between the first particle and a third particle of the particles embedded in the foamed matrix material. Lista and Altenberg are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely insulation devices based upon polyurethanes. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide GrafGuard® as the flame retardant in Altenberg. The motivation would have been Altenberg teaches this commercially available expandable graphite functions as a flame retardant in polyurethane compositions (Column 4, Lines 38 – 47) and thus would impart flame retardancy to the foamed matrix material of Lista.
When Lista is modified with Altenberg in the above proposed manner, the “first” density of the particles taught by Altenberg as evidenced by NeoGraf® (1800 to 2200 g/cm3) will be higher than the “second density” of the foam matrix material of Lista (100 to 150 kg/m3). The “first” density (1800 to 2200 g/cm3) will also be greater than the “third” density of the unfoamed foam matrix material of Lista (300 or 500 kg/m3) and less than 2200 kg/m3.
Further, while the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties of a foam matrix material having different spring stiffnesses between the different masses of the particles embedded in the foamed matrix material to generate different resonance frequencies in the insulating element are not expressly taught by the references, the proposed combination of references teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process, including particles having different masses. The Office specifically notes that Lista in view of Altenberg teaches a foamed matrix material comprising the instantly claimed intumescent particles. [0067] of the instant specification teaches the presence of the particles leads to a change in the structure of the mass distribution in comparison with a foam material without these particles. This variable mass distribution would be reasonably expected to be correlated with a difference in spring stiffnesses between the different masses of particles, as spring stiffness and mass are interrelated properties. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. an insulating element in which the foamed material has different spring stiffnesses between the different masses of the particles resulting in the generation of different resonance frequencies, would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 17. Lista teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 may be a dishwasher or clothes washing machine [0016], i.e. a water-guiding household appliance.
Regarding Claim 20. Lista teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 wherein the foamed matrix material may have a density of 100 to 150 kg/m3 [0045].
Regarding Claim 30. Lista teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 wherein the insulation element may be prepared by applying and curing the viscoelastic polyurethane foam formulation onto the component/receiving region [0079], such that the foam layer is directly foamed onto the receiving region.
Regarding Claim 31. Lista teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 wherein the particles may be ground elastomer particles [0041]. Elastomers would be reasonably expected to have a modulus of elasticity which is greater than the modulus of elasticity of the foamed polyurethane matrix material.
Regarding Claim 35. Lista teaches the household appliance of Claim 16 wherein particles of different materials may be added to the foamed matrix material [0041].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and claim objection set forth in this Office action, as well as to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest a household appliance comprising an insulating element having all of the instantly claimed features and including particles having intumescent properties with a particle size of less than 1 mm, at least one particle having a size of greater than 500 mm, and wherein less than 10% of the particles have a size greater than 500 microns.
US 2018/0049618 to Lista et al. (hereinafter Lista) in view of US 6,096,416 to Altenberg (hereinafter Altenberg) corresponds to the closest prior art. Lista teaches a household appliance comprising an insulation element which is applied to at least one component thereof ([0011], [0016], and [0017]). The insulation element is specifically a viscoelastic polyurethane foam which provides acoustic insulation ([0011] – [0015]). The reaction mixture for preparing the viscoelastic polyurethane foam may comprise a flame retardant [0041].
Lista does not expressly teach the flame retardant corresponds to particles with intumescent properties or specify the particle size thereof. No other prior art reference provides the necessary teaching or guidance to include particles having intumescent properties with a particle size of less than 1 mm, at least one particle having a size of greater than 500 mm, and wherein less than 10% of the particles have a size greater than 500 microns in the insulation element of Lista. While Altenberg was previously relied upon to teach Claim 36, the reference does not teach these newly claimed features. Altenberg teaches the concept of providing intumescent expandable graphite, such as that sold as GrafGuard® in foamed polyurethane insulation (Column 4, Lines 38 – 47) but provides no disclosure of the presence of at least one particle having a size of greater than 500 mm or quantify the amount particles having a size greater than 500 microns therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Claim Objections
The outstanding objection to Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Patentability of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims obviate the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Office respectfully disagrees. There remains a lack of antecedent basis for “the” particles recites after the initial recitations of “particles embedded in the foamed matrix material”, “a first particle”, “a second particle”, and “a third particle”, as it is unclear to which particles in the aforementioned phrases are being referred to by the subsequent recitation of “the” particles.
Patentability of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that the applied references does not disclose “particles having intumescent properties wherein the particles have different masses and the foamed material has different spring stiffnesses between the different masses to generate different resonant frequencies in the insulating element, wherein a first resonant frequency between a first particle of the particles and a second particle of the particles is different from a second resonant frequency between the first particle and a third particle of the particles.” In response, the Office respectfully submits that all of these features would be met by the combination of Lista with Altenberg, for the reasons detailed in the modified grounds of rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
Additionally, with respect to Claim 36, the Office agrees that the subject matter set forth is not disclosed by the prior art. Accordingly, no prior art rejection has been set forth.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights