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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: as written, the recitations in Claim 16 that “the particles have a first density”, “a second density of the foamed matrix material”, and “a third density of the unfoamed density” would appear to imply that each of the aforementioned materials has multiple densities.
For this reason, it suggested that the claim be amended to recite, for example, “wherein a first density corresponds to the average density of the particles, a second density corresponds to the density of the foamed matrix material, and a third density corresponds to the density of the unfoamed matrix material; and wherein the first density is higher than the second density, and the first density is greater than the third density and less than 2200 kg/m3”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27 – 31, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention because:
The original disclosure does not provide support for the new limitation in independent Claim 16 of “a first resonant frequency of the foamed material between a first particle of the particles and a second particle of the particles” that is “different than a second resonant frequency of the foamed matrix material between the first particle and a third particle of the particles”. The closest support for this limitation would appear to come from [0063] of the original specification, which sets forth “different resonance frequencies of the spring-mass oscillators are generated by the different masses m of the particles 19 and the variable spring stiffnesses between the particles 19”. However, there is no disclosure of “a first resonant frequency of the foamed material between a first particle of the particles and a second particle of the particles” that is “different than a second resonant frequency of the foamed matrix material between the first particle and a third particle of the particles” or any discussion of a relationship between three particular particles and 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.
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 now a lack of antecedent basis for “the” particles recited in each instance in Claims 16, 24, 26, 29, 31, 35, and 36. Independent Claim 16 now sets forth “particles with intumescent properties”, “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 with intumescent properties.
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, and 36 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, 27 – 29, and 36. 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. 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 Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties with respect to resonance frequency, the proposed combination of references teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. an insulating element in which the claimed resonant frequency relationships are satisfied, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Claim Objections
Applicant indicates the amendments to Claim 16 obviate the outstanding rejection. However, these amendments incorporate the previously objected-to language in Claim 16 and thus the objection has been maintained.
Patentability of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112
The Office agrees the amendments to the claims overcome all outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Accordingly, each of these rejections has been withdrawn. However, the amendments to the claims do raise new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) which are set forth in the corresponding new grounds of rejection above.
Patentability of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that an insulating element including a foamed matrix material and particles with intumescent properties embodied in the foamed matrix material is not taught by the applied references. In response, the Office respectfully submits that this limitation is now met by the combination of US 2018/0049618 to Lista et al. (hereinafter Lista) with newly discovered US 6,096,416 to Altenberg (hereinafter Altenberg). Lista teaches the concept of including fire retardants in its foam formulations such that they would be embedded in the foam product [0041]. It is the Office’s position that, 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 as detailed in the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Altenberg teaches the concept of providing intumescent expandable graphite, such as that sold as GrafGuard® in foamed polyurethane insulation (Column 4, Lines 38 – 47).
Applicant additionally argues that the applied references are silent regarding “a first resonant frequency of the foamed material between a first particle of the particles and a second particle of the particles” that is “different than a second resonant frequency of the foamed matrix material between the first particle and a third particle of the particles”. The Office respectfully submits that these limitations appear to introduce new matter. However, assuming arguendo this limitation were to find support in the original disclosure, it would then be the Office’s position that these properties would be implicitly achieved by the proposed combination of references (see rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Bertucelli are hereby moot, as the reference is not applied in any rejection of the claims currently set forth.
New Claim 36
Applicant argues that Claim 36 is patentable for at least the same reasons as Claim 16. However, the arguments with respect to patentability of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 were not found persuasive for the reasons detailed in the preceding sub-section of this Response to Arguments section. The additional features recited in new Claim 36 were further not found to be patentable over the prior art for the reasons detailed in the rejection of Claims 16 and 36 together under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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