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 a final rejection was mailed 11/19/2025. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Two pages of amended claims were received on 3/17/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the product of Invention Group I in the reply filed on 5/28/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 4/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-27, which are cancelled, were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB-2303788-A to Ward (“Ward”) in view of US PGPUB 2014/0144095 A1 to Blaszak et al. (“Blaszak”).
As to Claim 1, Ward discloses an intumescent mesh (See Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a mesh structure woven from strands (#1), the strands defining openings in the mesh structure (See Fig. 1 and See Page 3 Paragraph 2), the strands being non-metal (See Page 2 Paragraph 4 disclosing glass fibres);
an intumescent material applied to the strands (See Page 2 Paragraphs 1-2 disclosing a fluid mixed with a powder intumescent material), the intumescent material being carried such that, in an inactivated state the intumescent material permits airflow through the openings in the mesh structure (See Page 3 Paragraph 4), and in an activated state, the intumescent material swells and restricts airflow through the openings in the mesh structure (See Page 4 Paragraph 3 and Page 5 Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward does not specifically disclose wherein the mesh structure is woven from strands in a half Leno weave, wherein the mesh structure and intumescent material are sufficiently flexible such that the intumescent mesh is foldable and rollable in a roll, wherein the intumescent mesh is able to withstand a temperature of at least 980°C for at least 10 minutes prior to failure (See Figs. 1-2 and Page 3 Paragraph 4. The mesh structure with intumescent material is made of glass fibres with intumescent material such that the mesh structure can be flexed to some extent and a weave is shown, however a foldable half Leno weave is not specifically disclosed. Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4 discloses using the intumescent mesh as a fire barrier, however specific temperatures and times are not disclosed).
However, Blaszak discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire protection (See Paragraph 0041), an intumescent mesh (See #10 in Fig. 3 and See Paragraphs 0041-0044 disclosing that #10 can have an insulation layer that is has an intumescent coating applied. Paragraph 0041 discloses “The insulation layer may be any suitable insulation layer formed of any suitable material, weight, and thickness” and “Preferably, the insulation layer is self-supporting, durable to handling and impact, and resistive to environment”. Paragraph 0044 discloses “fire retarding agents can be applied, such as in a powder form into a high temperature insulation blanket, such as a flexible ceramic blanket”) comprising a mesh structure (See #100 and #200 in Fig. 3) woven from strands (#110 and #120) in a half Leno weave (See Paragraphs 0029-0030 and See Fig. 3. The weave pattern shown that is partially a plain weave and partially a leno weave is equivalent to a “half Leno weave”), the strands defining openings in the mesh structure (See Fig. 3 showing various openings in #10 and See Paragraphs 0020-0021), the strands being non-metal (See Paragraphs 0022 and 0026 disclosing glass fiber), wherein the mesh structure and the intumescent material are sufficiently flexible to be foldable (See Paragraph 0034 disclosing folding of #10 along an edge of #200.) and rollable in a roll (See Paragraph 0018 and Fig. 2 showing #10 rolled into a roll, thus #10 is capable of being rolled into a roll), wherein the intumescent mesh is able to withstand a temperature of at least 980°C for at least 10 minutes prior to failure (See Paragraph 0041 disclosing withstanding temperatures of 1100°C for 240 minutes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward as applied to Claim 1 above so the mesh structure is woven from strands in a half Leno weave such that the mesh structure and the intumescent material applied are sufficiently flexible to be foldable and rollable in a roll as taught by Blaszak, since doing so would yield the predictable result of securely holding the strands in position (See Blaszak Paragraph 0029) while allowing doubling of the intumescent mesh where an application demands additional reinforcement (See Blaszak Paragraph 0034), thus providing an additional layer of fire protection. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intumescent mesh be able to withstand temperatures of 1100°C for 240 minutes, thus exceeding a temperature of at least 980°C for at least 10 minutes, prior to failure since doing so would yield the predictable result of having suitable fire and temperature protection (See Blaszak Paragraph 0041).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward further discloses wherein the strands are fibreglass strands (See Page 2 Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Blaszak further discloses wherein the intumescent mesh is able to withstand the temperature of at least 980°C for at least 15 minutes prior to failure (See Blaszak Paragraph 0041 disclosing withstanding temperatures of 1100°C for 240 minutes).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 7 above, Ward as modified by Blaszak does not specifically disclose wherein failure is achieved when a temperature of 150°C is reached behind a 12.7 mm thick engineered form of wood underlying the intumescent mesh, relative to a source of heat (See Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4 disclosing using the intumescent mesh as a fire barrier, however specific temperatures are not disclosed. Blaszak Paragraph 0041 discloses keeping a surface temperature below 250°C for at least 240 minutes but does not disclose wood of any specific thickness being kept below any particular temperature).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak be able to prevent failure that is achieved when a temperature of 150°C is reached behind a 12.7 mm thick engineered form of wood underlying the intumescent mesh, relative to a source of heat, since the intumescent mesh of Ward as modified by Blaszak is utilized as a fire barrier (See Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4) to keep structural materials below a temperature for a period of time (See Blaszak Paragraph 0041), and being able to prevent failure at such a condition would yield the predictable result of keeping wooden features of a structure intact for a period of time during a fire.
Regarding Claim 9, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward as modified by Blaszak does not specifically disclose wherein the intumescent mesh is able to withstand temperature surges of up to 1250°C for at least 1 minute without failure (See Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4 disclosing using the intumescent mesh as a fire barrier, however specific temperatures and times are not disclosed. Blaszak Paragraph 0041 disclosing withstanding temperatures of 1100°C for 240 minutes but does not disclose higher temperatures.).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak be able to withstand temperature surges of up to 1250°C for at least 1 minute without failure by utilizing suitable strand materials, since the intumescent mesh of Ward is utilized as a fire barrier (See Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4) and fires are known to yield temperature surges higher than 1250°C over various periods of time.
As to Claim 13, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward further discloses the intumescent mesh comprising a surface coating applied between the mesh structure and the intumescent material, the surface coating being selected to improve adhesion between the mesh structure and the intumescent material (See Figs. 1-2, Page 2 Paragraph 6, and Page 3 Paragraph 5. The adhesive coating #3 may be applied and mixed with the intumescent material. When the adhesive #3 is mixed with the intumescent material it acts as a surface coating, at least some of which is between the mesh structure and the intumescent material, that acts to help adhere #1 and #2 together).
Claims 2-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view Blaszak and US PGPUB 2018/0038098 A1 to Wall et al. (“Wall”).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the mesh structure are between 0.18 inches and 0.32 inches along a width and height (See Page 3 Paragraph 2 disclosing the openings being 1 mm to 3 mm in width). However, Wall discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire protection (See Paragraph 0002), an intumescent mesh (See Figs. 2-3) comprising openings (#16) in a mesh structure (#12) that are .1875 inches to .3125 inches (See Paragraph 0025 disclosing a mesh size of 1/4 +/- 1/16 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above such that the openings in the mesh structure are between 0.1875 inches and 0.3125 inches (which meets the limitation of 0.18 inches to 0.32 inches) along a width and height, as taught by Wall since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing for suitable fire protection while still allowing for sufficient airflow (See Wall Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 3, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the mesh structure have an average size of 0.25 inches +/- 0.06 inches (See Page 3 Paragraph 2 disclosing the openings being 1 mm to 3 mm in width).
However, Wall discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire protection (See Paragraph 0002), an intumescent mesh (See Figs. 2-3) comprising openings (#16) in a mesh structure (#12) that have a size of 0.25 inches (See Paragraph 0025 disclosing a mesh size of 1/4 +/- 1/16 inches).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above such that the openings in the mesh structure have an average size of 0.25 inches (which meets the limitation of 0.25 inches +/- 0.06 inches), as taught by Wall since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing for suitable fire protection while still allowing for sufficient airflow (See Wall Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward does not specifically disclose wherein the intumescent material is activated at a temperature of at least 270°C (See Ward Page 1 Paragraphs 1-4 disclosing using the intumescent mesh as a fire barrier, however specific temperatures and times are not disclosed).
However, Wall discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire protection (See Paragraph 0002), an intumescent mesh (See Figs. 2-3) comprising an intumescent material (#18) that is activated at a temperature of 600°C, or higher, or lower (See Paragraph 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above such that the intumescent material is activated at a temperature of 600°C (which meets the limitation of at least 270°C), as taught by Wall since doing so would yield the predictable result of initiating swelling of the intumescent material at a desired temperature indicative of a fire (See Wall Paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 10, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above, Ward does not specifically disclose wherein the intumescent material and strands are sized such that an available airflow area of the openings in the mesh structure is 25-75% of the mesh structure (See Figs. 1-2, a specific airflow area percentage is not disclosed).
However, Wall discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire protection (See Paragraph 0002), an intumescent mesh (See Figs. 2-3) comprising an intumescent material (#18) and strands (#14) that are sized such that an available airflow area of openings (#16) is 40% to 70% of a mesh structure (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak as applied to Claim 1 above such that the intumescent material and strands are sized such that an available airflow area of the openings in the mesh structure is 40%-70% of the mesh structure (which meets the limitation of 25% to 75%), as taught by Wall since doing so would yield the predictable result of permitting sufficient air flow to prevent moisture damage behind the intumescent mesh (See Wall Paragraph 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended independent Claim 1, which remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of Blaszak, applicant argues that Blaszak does not teach a mesh structure that is foldable with intumescent material applied. Applicant argues that Paragraph 0034 of Blaszak describes a reinforcing sheet of textile that may be folded along a slitting zone edge to allow the mesh structure to be double-layered for additional reinforcement, and that even if Blaszak were interpreted as teaching an intumescent mesh that was foldable, Blaszak does not teach a mesh that is rollable into a roll as recited in amended Claim 1.
These arguments are not found persuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). As to the desirability of the modification, the proper inquiry is “whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination,’ not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the prior art fails to disclose a functional limitation, the examiner may be able to rely on the theory of inherency. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See: MPEP §2112 IV; Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Amended Claim 1 requires that “the mesh structure and the intumescent material applied are sufficiently flexible such that the intumescent mesh is foldable and rollable in a roll”. While Ward does not specifically disclose folding of the mesh structure, Blaszak discloses in Paragraph 0034 wherein a mesh structure that is woven from strands in a half Leno weave is sufficiently flexible to be foldable. Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0018 also show the mesh structure being rolled. Furthermore, Per Paragraph 0041 the mesh structure #10 can have an insulation layer partially or fully covering #110 in “any suitbale insulation layer formed of any suitable material” and that “the insulation layer is self-supporting, durable to handling and impact, and resistive to environment”. Paragraph 0044 also states “fire retarding agents can be applied, such as in a powder form into a high temperature insulation blanket “. Therefore, based on Figs. 2-3 and the disclosures of Paragraphs 0018, 0034, 0041, and 0044 it is understood that the mesh structure of Blaszak and the intumescent material applied of Blaszak are flexible to an extent that the intumescent mesh of Blaszak is capable of being folded to some extent and is also capable of being rolled to some extent with intumescent material applied on the mesh structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intumescent mesh of Ward so the mesh structure is woven from strands in a half Leno weave such that the mesh structure and the intumescent material applied are sufficiently flexible to be foldable and rollable in a roll as taught by Blaszak, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing doubling of the intumescent mesh where an application demands additional reinforcement as disclosed in Paragraph 0034 of Blaszak, thus providing an additional layer of fire protection which can be helpful in roofing applications. Regardless of whether or not some amount of intumescent material may flake from the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak due to folding or rolling of the mesh structure, the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak will be capable of being folded to some extent and will also be capable of being rolled to some extent. Therefore, the intumescent mesh of Ward in view of Blaszak reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the structural and functional limitations of Claim 1, and Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5,304,408 A to Jarosz et al. discloses an intumescent mesh shown in Fig. 1 that is rollable in a roll as disclosed in Col. 3 Lines 19-21.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights