DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 20 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13-19 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure as originally filed provides support for “The amount of plasticizer in the first plasticized cellulose ester-based composition may be from 1% to 40% by weight or from 5% to 30% by weight based on the total weight of said first plasticized cellulose ester-based composition.” However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for a range of 5% to 50% by weight.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 20 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 20 is/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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed two-layer multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z):
(W) the corrected non-flaming smoke density of 450 or less when tested according to ASTM E-662; and
(X) a "class 1" rating when tested according to ASTM E-648; and
(Y) the first plasticized cellulose ester-based composition exhibits a flexural
modulus of at least 1350 MPa as measured according to ASTM D790 using injection molded flex bars; and
(Z) the second plasticized cellulose ester-based composition exhibits a flexural
modulus of at least 1350 MPa as measured according to ASTM D790 using injection molded flex bars.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement is whether that the claimed invention is enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation."). See also MPEP 2164.01. The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
MPEP 2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-08.2012]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) The existence of working examples; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reversing the PTO’s determination that claims directed to methods for detection of hepatitis B surface antigens did not satisfy the enablement requirement). In Wands, the court noted that there was no disagreement as to the facts, but merely a disagreement as to the interpretation of the data and the conclusion to be made from the facts. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07. The Court held that the specification was enabling with respect to the claims at issue and found that "there was considerable direction and guidance" in the specification; there was "a high level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed;" and "all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known." 858 F.2d at 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1406. After considering all the factors related to the enablement issue, the court concluded that "it would not require undue experimentation to obtain antibodies needed to practice the claimed invention." Id., 8 USPQ2d at 1407.
With respect to Wand factor (A), the claims are relatively broad -- for example, but not limited to:
• the claims do not contain any limitations on the composition of the core layer as a whole, as long as the first cellulose ester-based composition is present in any non-zero amount;
• the claims do not contain any limitations on the composition of the top layer as a whole, as long as the first cellulose ester-based composition is present in any non-zero amount;
• the claims only specify the individual amounts of the required components in the first plasticized cellulose ester-based composition based on the total weight of the first plasticized cellulose ester-based composition, which is not identical to the total weight of the core layer as a whole;
• the claims only specify the individual amounts of the required components in the second plasticized cellulose ester-based composition based on the total weight of the second plasticized cellulose ester-based composition, which is not identical to the total weight of the top layer as a whole;
• claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20 only specify the individual amounts of the required components in the second plasticized cellulose ester-based composition based on the total weight of the second plasticized cellulose ester-based composition, which is not identical to the total weight of the top layer as a whole;
• claims 7-8 do not contain any limitations on the composition of the second cellulose ester-based composition, as long as the second cellulose ester-based composition contains a cellulose ester and a plasticizer in any non-zero amount;
• the claims allow for substantial amounts (i.e., up to 45 wt% in the first cellulose ester-based composition of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20; up to 39 wt% in the first cellulose ester-based composition of claims 7-8) of other components in the first cellulose ester-based compositions and do not contain any limitations on the type(s) and amount(s) of these other components (e.g., other polymeric components; non-polymeric components such as various organic or inorganic compounds, such as fillers, pigments, and/or other additives; etc.) in the first cellulose ester-based composition as long as the required components are present in the first cellulose ester-based compositions in the recited amounts;
• the claims allow for substantial amounts (i.e., up to 48 wt% in the second cellulose ester-based composition of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20; less than 100 wt% in the second cellulose ester-based composition of claims 7-8) of other components in the cellulose ester-based compositions and do not contain any limitations on the type(s) and amount(s) of these other components (e.g., other polymeric components; non-polymeric components such as various organic or inorganic compounds, such as fillers, pigments, and/or other additives; etc.) in the second cellulose ester-based composition as long as the required components are present in the second cellulose ester-based compositions in the recited amounts;
• the claims contain only minimal limitations on the structure of the multilayer article; etc.
----------------------------------------------
• Regarding the compositions of the core layer as a whole and the top layer as a whole -- in the absence of an explicit definition to the contrary in the disclosure as originally filed, the phrase “formed from” is deemed the equivalent of the open term “comprises”, which permits the presence of unrestricted amount(s) and or type(s) of additional material(s), as long as the first cellulose ester-based composition is present in the core layer in any non-zero amount and the second cellulose ester-based composition is present in the top layer in any non-zero amount.
Even assuming that the phrase “formed from” can be considered the equivalent of the transitional phrase “composed of” -- a point not conceded by the Examiner -- the phrase “composed of” can be interpreted in same manner as "consisting essentially of". See MPEP 2111.03 (IV). The semi-closed phrase “consisting essentially of”, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See MPEP 2111.03 (III).
----------------------------------------------
• Regarding the first cellulose ester-based composition and the second cellulose based composition -- the present claims utilize the open phrase “comprising”, which permits the presence of unrestricted amount(s) and or type(s) of additional material(s), as long as the recited components are present in the first cellulose ester-based composition and the second cellulose ester-based composition in the recited amounts.
----------------------------------------------
With respect to Wand factor (B), the specification states that prior art materials cannot meet the requirements of utilizing environmentally-friendly materials for flooring articles which exhibit flammability, smoke suppression, and other performance characteristics comparable to conventional polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flooring.
With respect to Wand factors (C)-(E), the prior art does not specifically disclose or teach the production of multilayer articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited above fire retardant physical properties (W)-(X), wherein the first cellulose ester-based composition exhibits recited flexural modulus property (Y) and the second cellulose ester-based composition exhibits flexural modulus property (Z).
With respect to Wand factor (F), the disclosure as originally filed provides no specific guidance or direction with respect to producing the claimed multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z).
With respect to Wand factor (G), the disclosure as originally filed provides no inventive Examples of multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z).
----------------------------------------------
• Regarding recited property (W) smoke density -- only laminate Examples 1-2, 4, 6-8, 13-18 show a corrected smoke density of 450 or less.
• Regarding recited property (X) flame spread -- only laminate Examples 1-8 provide any information with respect to whether the Example exhibits the required “class 1”.
• Regarding recited property (Y) flexural modulus of the first cellulose ester-based composition -- only laminate Examples 7-11, 13-18 provide experimental data on the flexural modulus of the first cellulose ester-based composition.
• Regarding recited property (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition -- no laminate Examples provide experimental data on the flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition -- i.e., only selected core layer formulations (which represent the first cellulose ester-based compositions) were subjected to flexural modulus testing. Inorganic fillers can materially affect the flexural modulus of a polymer composition, while the top layer formulations 1-3 do not contain any fillers (i.e., calcium carbonate and/or alumina trihydrate), so it is unclear whether top layer formulations 1-3 (which represent the second cellulose ester-based compositions) in the laminate Examples in the specification meet (or fail to meet) satisfy recited property (Z) flexural modulus.
• Regarding the compositional limitation in claim 1 -- laminate Examples 7-8 (utilizing core formulations 8-9) do not satisfy the compositional requirements of claim 1 -- i.e., core layer formulations 8-9 do not contain the required 20-60 wt% of a mineral-based water releasing agent as recited in claim 1.
• Regarding the structural limitations in claims 1, 7 -- laminate Examples 1-2, 4, 6-8, 13-18 all utilize a three-layer structure containing: (i) two outer layers with a thickness of 0.04 inches and composed of a core layer formulation containing one or more flame-retarding agent(s); and (ii) a middle layer with a thickness of 0.02 inches and composed of top layer formulations which do not contain any flame-retarding agent(s). No laminate Examples in the specification utilize a two-layer structure (i.e., one core layer and one top layer) as recited in claims 1, 7.
Therefore, the specification fails to contain a single laminate Example which simultaneously meets recited properties (W)-(Z), combined with the recited two-layer structure.
----------------------------------------------
With respect to Wand factor (H), the inventive Examples in the Specification provide evidence that even relatively minor differences in the amount of one or more of the required components can cause the laminate Example to fail to simultaneously satisfy recited properties (W)-(Y). In particular, even relatively minor changes in core layer and top layer compositions can cause a laminate Example to fail the (W) smoke density requirement
----------------------------------------------
• For example, a comparison of laminate Example 8 (utilizing core formulation 9) and laminate Examples 9-12 (utilizing core formulations 10-13) provides persuasive evidence that even a relatively minor decrease of 3-5.5 wt% RDP flame retardant (and an corresponding relatively minor increase of 3-5.5 wt% TEGEH plasticizer) is sufficient to cause laminate Examples 9-12 to fail to satisfy recited property (W) smoke density. Furthermore, it is unclear (due to the absence of test data) whether laminate Examples 9-12 satisfy the (X) flame spread class requirement.
• Similarly, a comparison of Laminate Examples 1-2, 4, 6 (utilizing core formulations 4, 6) and Laminate Examples 3, 5 (utilizing core formulation 5) appear to indicate that the presence of RDP flame retardant materially affects the laminate Example’s ability to satisfy recited property (W) smoke density, even though core formulation 5 contains significant amounts of MICRAL 932 (alumina trihydrate) and the top layers (utilizing top composition 2-3) contain significant amounts of RDP.
• A comparison of laminate Examples 1-2, 4, 6 (utilizing core formulations 4, 6 which contain 10.8-13.3 wt% RDP) and laminate Example 3, 5 (utilizing core formulation 5, which does not contain RDP) appear to indicate that a significant amount of RDP in the core layer formulation is needed to satisfy the recited property (W) smoke density, while laminates containing core layers of a first cellulose ester-based composition that only contains alumina trihydrate (but not RDP) fail to satisfy the recited property (W) smoke density.
----------------------------------------------
Additionally, a filler such as alumina trihydrate can materially affect -- possibly unpredictably -- both flame retardant properties (W)-(X) and mechanical properties (Y)-(X) simultaneously. For example, certain fillers can initially increase flexural modulus at low loadings (which may not be sufficient to provide an effective flame-retarding effect), but reduce flexural modulus when used at higher loadings (typically required to obtain an effective flame-retardant effect).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to produce multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited above fire retardant physical properties (W)-(X) combined with a first cellulose ester-based composition exhibiting recited flexural modulus property (Y) and a second cellulose ester-based composition exhibits flexural modulus property (Z), particularly when the disclosure as originally filed: (i) fails to provide adequate guidance or direction regarding how to produce multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited properties (W)-(Z); and (ii) fails to provide working Examples of multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited properties (W)-(Z); particularly in view in the Examples in the Specification which provide evidence that: (i) even relatively minor changes to the first cellulose ester-based composition and/or the second cellulose ester-based composition can materially effect on properties (W) and (Z); and (ii) the individual components of the cellulose ester-based compositions may interact to simultaneously affect multiple physical properties in potentially unpredictable ways.
In view of the above, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure as originally filed does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited (W)-(Z). particularly in view of: (1) the substantial breath of the present claims; and (2) the complete absence of working Examples or guidance in the disclosure as originally filed.
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.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action mailed 02/25/2026 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 05/22/2026 (i.e., the cancellation of claim 15)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on BASTIN ET AL (US 2022/0195739), in view of ODUM ET AL (US 2018/0163413), and in view of BONSIGNORE (US 4,283,316), and in view of BERGER (US 4,105,465) in the previous Office Action mailed 03/13/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 12/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that the phrase “formed from” constitute a closed/limiting phrase with respect to the composition of the core layer and top layer, and that “replacing "comprising" with "formed from" at the layer level signals that each layer is substantively constituted by the recited composition, rather than merely containing the composition together with arbitrary other materials.” However, as discussed above, in the absence of an explicit definition to the contrary in the disclosure as originally filed, the phrase “formed from” is deemed the equivalent of the open term “comprises”, which permits the presence of unrestricted amount(s) and or type(s) of additional material(s), as long as the first cellulose ester-based composition is present in the core layer in any non-zero amount and the second cellulose ester-based composition is present in the top layer in any non-zero amount. If Applicant wishes to restrict the compositions of the core layer and the top layer, Applicant should: (i) utilize the established closed phrase “consisting of” (see MPEP 2111.03 (II)); or (ii) utilize the established semi-closed phrase “consisting essentially of”, combined with a clear indication from the disclosure as originally filed of what the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention actually are (see MPEP 2111.03 (III).
(B) Applicant argues that “the newly added plasticizer ranges (5-30 wt% in the first composition; 2-35 wt% in the second composition) materially constrain the amount of headroom available for any unspecified "other components" in each composition. However, as discussed above, present claims still allow for significant amounts of other components in the first and second cellulose ester-based compositions (i.e., up to 45 wt% in the first cellulose ester-based composition of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20; up to 39 wt% in the first cellulose ester-based composition of claims 7-8; up to 48 wt% in the second cellulose ester-based composition of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12, 20; less than 100 wt% in the second cellulose ester-based composition of claims 7-8). Given that the laminate Examples in the specification provide evidence that relatively minor differences (e.g., 3-5.5 wt%) in at least the first cellulose ester-based composition can make the difference between a laminate Example satisfying (i.e., laminate Example 8) or failing (i.e., laminate Examples 9-12) the recited property (W) smoke density, the amounts of other, unrestricted components in the first and second cellulose ester-based compositions permitted by claims 1, 7 provides for claims with relatively broad compositional limitations.
(C) Applicant argues that “The specification is far from merely a "skeletal" disclosure. It provides detailed, quantitative teachings across every component category recited in the claims.” Applicant further argues that “Collectively, these teachings provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with detailed, quantitative guidance on how to select and combine every component required by the claims to produce a multilayer resilient flooring article meeting the recited performance properties. MPEP § 2164.01(a).”
However, ass discussed in detail in the present rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, the disclosure as originally filed: (i) with respect to Wand factor (F), does not provide adequate guidance or direction with respect to producing the claimed multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z)); and (ii) with respect to Wand factor (G), the disclosure as originally filed does not provide any inventive Examples of multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z). In particular, none of the laminate Examples in the specification provide experimental data on the recited property (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition -- i.e., only selected core layer formulations (which represent the first cellulose ester-based compositions) were subjected to flexural modulus testing -- and Applicant has not provided any objective evidence that top layer formulations 1-3 (which represent the second cellulose ester-based compositions) in the laminate Examples satisfy (or fail to satisfy) recited property (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition. For example, inorganic fillers can materially affect (e.g., increasing or decreasing, based on the type of filler and/or the filler loading; etc.) the flexural modulus of a polymer composition while the top layer formulations 1-3 do not contain any fillers (i.e., calcium carbonate and/or alumina trihydrate).
(D) Applicant argues that the specification “provides multiple working examples that span different combustion-suppression strategies and that collectively demonstrate the reproducibility of the three recited performance properties across the claimed scope.” However, as discussed above, the specification does not provide any inventive Examples of multilayer resilient flooring articles which simultaneously exhibit the recited four properties (W)-(Z). In particular, none of the laminate Examples in the specification provide experimental data on the recited property (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition. Also, as previously noted, laminate Examples 1, 4, 6 do not provide any data with respect to recited properties (Y) flexural modulus of the first cellulose ester-based composition and (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition, while laminate Examples 7-8 do not provide any data with respect to recited property (Z) flexural modulus of the second cellulose ester-based composition. Additionally, the specification fails to provide any data with respect to recited property (Z) of top layer formulations 1-3.
(E) Applicant argues “The relationships among mineral fillers, phosphorus flame retardants, plasticizer content, and fire performance of plasticized polymer systems are well understood in the art, and the ASTM E-648, ASTM E-662, and ASTM D790 test methods recited in the claims provide objective, reproducible performance endpoints. A person of ordinary skill in the art, informed by the extensive guidance in the specification, would be able to select component types and amounts within the recited ranges and adjust formulations by routine optimization to achieve the recited performance properties.” However, while the effect of a single component on a single physical property can be generally recognized in the prior art and readily determined by routine experimentation, determining the effects of differing amounts and types of one or more components in a multi-component composition simultaneously on two distinct categories of physical properties (i.e.: (1) flame retarding properties (W)-(X); and (2) mechanical properties (Y) or (Z)) is a substantially more complex process requiring undue experimentation, particularly in the absence of: (i) sufficiently specific guidance and/or direction for experimentation for producing the presently claimed multilayer resilient flooring article; and (ii) working Examples simultaneously satisfying recited properties (W)-(Z) and having the recited two-layer structure.
Additionally, the working Examples in the specific provide persuasive evidence that differences in the amount of a given individual component in the claimed cellulose ester-based compositions affects not just one of physical properties (W)-(Z) in a laminate Example, but can affect multiple physical properties. For example, the amount of mineral-based water-releasing agent appears to simultaneously affect mechanical property (Z) flexural modulus and one or more flame-retarding properties (W) smoke density and/or (X) flame spread, and not necessarily in a simple, predictable linear manner. Certain fillers can initially increase flexural modulus at low loadings (which may not be sufficient to provide an effective flame-retarding effect), but reduce flexural modulus when used at higher loadings (typically required to obtain an effective flame-retardant effect). Additionally, the size and/or shape of the filler and/or possible chemical interactions between specific types of filler (such as relatively high concentrations of reactive groups such as hydroxyl groups present in water-releasing mineral-based agents, etc.) and specific types of polymers (such as cellulose ester polymers) can have unexpected and/or unpredictable effects on flame-retarding properties (W)-(X) and mechanical properties (Y)-(Z) simultaneously.
Furthermore, the Examiner has reason to believe that the flame-retarding properties (W) and (X) can be materially -- and potentially unpredictably -- affected by the number and placement of layers containing flame-retarding agents in a multilayer structure. For example, given two different three-layer laminate structures 1 and 2:
laminate 1:
• a first core layer with a thickness of 0.04 inch and containing a first cellulose ester-based composition comprising one or more flame-retarding agent(s);
• a middle top layer with a thickness of 0.02 inch and containing a second cellulose ester-based composition which doesn’t contain any flame-retarding agent(s);
• a second core layer with a thickness of 0.04 inch and containing a first cellulose ester-based composition comprising one or more flame-retarding agent(s);
laminate 2:
• a first top layer with a thickness of 0.04 inch and containing a second cellulose ester-based composition which doesn’t contain any flame-retarding agent(s);
• a middle core layer with a thickness of 0.02 inch and containing a first cellulose ester-based composition comprising one or more flame-retarding agent(s);
• a second top layer with a thickness of 0.04 inch and containing a second cellulose ester-based composition which doesn’t contain any flame-retarding agent(s);
the Examiner has reason to believe that laminates 1 and 2 would exhibit materially different flame-retarding properties (W) smoke density and/or (X) flame spread which may (or may not) satisfy the requirements of claims 1, 7 (e.g., due to differences in the total amount of flame-retarding agents in laminates 1 and 2).
Similarly, given two different laminate structures 3 and 4:
laminate 3:
• a core layer with a thickness of 0.08 inch and containing a first cellulose ester-based composition comprising one or more flame-retarding agent(s);
• a top layer with a thickness of 0.02 inch and containing a second cellulose ester-based composition which doesn’t contain any flame-retarding agent(s);
laminate 4:
• a core layer with a thickness of 0.02 inch and containing a first cellulose ester-based composition comprising one or more flame-retarding agent(s);
• a top layer with a thickness of 0.08 inch and containing a second cellulose ester-based composition which doesn’t contain any flame-retarding agent(s);
the Examiner has reason to believe that laminates 3 and 4 would exhibit materially different flame-retarding properties (W) smoke density and/or (X) flame spread which may (or may not) satisfy the requirements of claims 1, 7 (e.g., due to differences in the total amount of flame-retarding agents in laminates 3 and 4).
(F) Applicant’s arguments in sections 6 to 8(e) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 05/22/2026.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
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.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
August 19, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights