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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 12/11/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. The limitations of claim 16 have been incorporated into claim 15. Accordingly, claim 16 is cancelled. Claims 15, 17, and 19–28 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15, 17, and 19–21 as being unpatentable over Brahms (US 2018/0134002 A1).
Brahms discloses a composite flame barrier 10 that includes at least one sheet layer 2 of resin impregnated pre-preg comprising carbon, glass, aramid, and/or ceramic fibers and expandable graphite (i.e., graphite salt). Brahms abstract, ¶¶ 20, 29–33, Fig. 1. At least one nonwoven textile layer 1 comprising flame resistant fibers and resin may be applied to the layer comprising expandable graphite. Id. ¶ 20, Fig. 1.
The sheet layer 2 may comprise 10–85 weight percent expandable graphite, 15–90 weight percent glass and/or mineral fibers, and up to 10 weight percent polymeric binder, and has a total sheet layer weight in the range of 1 oz/yd2 to 50 oz/yd2 (~34 g/m2 to 1695 g/m2). Id. ¶ 26, Fig. 1. As such, the amount of expandable graphite present in sheet layer 2 may be as low as ~3 g/m2 (10% of 34 g/m2). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the expandable graphite within the claimed range. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the ranges for each component in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully achieve the flame retardant resin composition. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in the claims are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 21 as the polymeric binder used in the examples includes the duromer, epoxy (Technofire®) that may be cured. See Brahms ¶¶ 34, 36.
Claim(s) 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahms as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yu (US 2017/0225429 A1).
Brahms’ composite flame barrier comprising at least one pre-preg sheet layer containing carbon, glass, aramid, and/or ceramic fibers and expandable graphite (i.e., graphite salt) and at least one nonwoven textile layer 1 comprising flame resistant fibers and resin applied to the sheet layer comprising expandable graphite. Id. ¶ 20, 29–33, Fig. 1.
Yu teaches the creating of prepregs, core layers, and composite articles comprising expandable graphite, reinforcing fibers, and thermoplastic polymer. Yu abstract. The core layer 410 may have on opposite faces, skin layers 410, 430, wherein the skin layers may comprise nonwoven fabrics or scrims. Id. ¶ 94.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the nonwoven textile layer of Brahms with a scrim layer because Yu teaches the functional equivalency of the fabric layers when supporting flame barriers comprising expandable graphite. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to have either stacked at least two layers of the Brahms composite flame barrier 10 that includes at least one sheet layer 2 of resin impregnated pre-preg comprising carbon, glass, aramid, and/or ceramic fibers and expandable graphite on top of one another or on opposite sides of the composite flame barrier as the composite flame barrier of Brahms comprises at least one expandable pre-preg layer and using multiple layers of the flame barrier would further enhance the flame barrier properties of the composite. Brahms ¶ 20.
Claim(s) 25–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahms as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Von Bonin (EP 0 492 248 A2).
Brahms fails to teach a specific temperature and pressure in creating the composite flame barrier.
Von Bonin teaches the formation of a flame-retardant sandwich composite comprising an expandable graphite material located between two textile sheets. Von Bonin abstract, description. The composite may be formed at preferred temperatures as low as 80oC and pressures of ~1– ~5 bar (1 to 5 kg/cm2). Id. description.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Von Bonin for guidance as to suitable temperatures and pressures to make flame retardant composite materials in order to successfully practice the invention of Brahms. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have used a calender to apply the pressure in order to make the composite of Brahms continuously, rather than in batches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a prima facie case of obviousness based on a slight overlap in the very broad ranges of graphite salt taught in Brahms has not been made with “sufficient specificity,” and that because examples set forth in the prior art are outside of the claimed range there is no support to modify Brahms to arrive at the claimed range. This argument is unpersuasive as Applicant fails to address the specific findings of the Examiner and erroneously relies upon the examples of Brahms in an attempt to establish non-obviousness. Here, Brahms teaches sheet layer 2 may comprise 10–85 weight percent expandable graphite, 15–90 weight percent glass and/or mineral fibers, and up to 10 weight percent polymeric binder, and has a total sheet layer weight in the range of 1 oz/yd2 to 50 oz/yd2 (~34 g/m2 to 1695 g/m2). Brahms ¶ 26, Fig. 1. As such, the amount of expandable graphite present in sheet layer 2 is ~3.4 g/m2 (10% of 34 g/m2) or more. Thus, the lower end of the range used in Brahms establishes a similar minimum in which to show effectiveness of the expandable graphite as Applicant. Accordingly, “sufficient specificity” is met by establishing minimum levels of the graphite salt necessary to provide fire protection thereby demonstrating obviousness based upon the prior art. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the prior art is not limited to its examples, but rather the reference needs to be taken in whole. As such, the Examiner has established “sufficient specificity” to render obvious the claimed range because the prior art shows very similar basis weight minimums for the graphite salt to effectively provide fire protection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786