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 response filed on June 30th, 2026 is acknowledged. Two pages of amended claims were received on 6/30/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 4/1/2026, however Claims 1, 4, 7, and 13 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below and Claims 2-3, 6, and 8-10 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection mailed on 4/1/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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Claims 14-27, which are cancelled, were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE-29722652-U1 to Dieter (“Dieter”).
As to Claim 1, Dieter discloses an intumescent mesh (See #1 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a mesh structure (See #2 in Fig. 2) woven from strands in a half Leno weave (See Fig. 2 and See Page 2 of the translation of the Description which states that strands #3 are “so-called leno threads” and that strands #4 are “weft threads”. Since half of the strands are leno threads, the weave is equivalent to a half leno weave.), the strands defining openings in the mesh structure (See Annotated Fig. 2), the strands being non-metal (See Page 2 of the translation of the description disclosing “glass fiber strands”); and
an intumescent material applied to the strands (See Page 2 of the translation of the description disclosing “impregnation with the then flowable intumescent material”), the intumescent material comprising expandable graphite in a polymer-based carrier (See Page 2 of the translation of the description disclosing “A preferred type of intumescent material used as a coating contains, for example, ammonium polyphosphates, melamine phosphates together with polyhydric alcohols such as pentaerythritol or starch, as well as gas formers such as urea or melamine. Pigments for coloring, reinforcing fillers such as silicate-containing minerals, high-purity graphite powder as well as plastic dispersions, homo- or copolymer resins in significant amounts of over 50% by weight can be added to this insulating layer material”. Ammonium polyphosphates are a polymer as are homo-polymer or copolymer resins. Graphite powder used for fire protection applications is expandable graphite.),
the intumescent material being carried such that, in an inactivated state the intumescent material permits airflow through the openings in the mesh structure (See Translation of Description Page 3 which states “As can be seen, the mesh openings 5 of the grid have been retained in a reduced size, so that air and heat exchange is possible through these opening”), and in an activated state, the intumescent material swells and restricts airflow through the openings in the mesh structure (See Translation of Description Page 2 which states “To achieve an optimized fire protection effect, the structure of the grid including its mesh openings, the thickness of the coating of its elements and the foaming capacity of the intumescent material used are selected and coordinated so that in the event of a fire the mesh openings are largely filled by the developing insulating foam within a short period of time of just a few seconds and an essentially continuous, load-bearing foam layer is created that is several times thicker than the original mat thickness, in which the solid strands of the grid are embedded”);
wherein the mesh structure and the intumescent material are sufficiently flexible such that the intumescent mesh is foldable and rollable in a roll without causing the intumescent material to spall from the mesh structure (See Figs. 3a-3e showing folded and rolled configurations of the mesh structure and See Translation of Description Page 2 which states “An essential aspect of the invention lies in the flexibility and bendability with a relatively high tensile strength of the fire protection mat according to the invention, which enables a tight sheathing of strands, such as cables, cable harnesses, pipes, etc., as well as a lining or covering of relatively complicated shaped components. It is also essential that the individual elements of the grid can remain flexible and tensile at higher temperatures, so that the structure of the grid remains intact even in the event of a fire and can withstand relatively high mechanical stresses, such as increased tensile forces” and also states “the retained tensile strength of the grid prevents cracks or breaks in the foam layer”. Thus, the intumescent mesh is structured such that it is capable of being folded or rolled in a roll under various conditions without the intumescent material spalling.); and
wherein the intumescent mesh is able to withstand a temperature of at least 980°C for at least 10 minutes prior to failure (See Translation of Description Page 2 which states “Depending on the type of grid and the amount applied or the thickness of the coating, the spread of a fire can be prevented by 3 to 180 minutes”. Thus since spreading fires occur at temperatures above 980°C and the intumescent mesh can prevent a fire for up to 180 minutes, the intumescent mesh when applied is capable of withstanding a temperature of 980°C for over 10 minutes before failing.).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter further discloses wherein the strands are fibreglass strands (See Page 2 of the translation of the description disclosing “glass fiber strands”).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter 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 Translation of Description Page 2 which states “Depending on the type of grid and the amount applied or the thickness of the coating, the spread of a fire can be prevented by 3 to 180 minutes”. Thus since spreading fires occur at temperatures above 980°C and the intumescent mesh can prevent a fire for up to 180 minutes, the intumescent mesh when applied is capable of withstanding a temperature of 980°C for over 15 minutes before failing.).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter 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 Translation of Description Page 2 which states “The relatively break-resistant coating has elastic properties and a permanent adhesion to the glass fiber strands of the grid in order to guarantee the textile character of the mat and thus its easy handling and its universal application possibilities”. Therefore, a surface of the coating that adheres to the grid is equivalent to a surface coating that is between the mesh and the intumescent material.).
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 2-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter in view of US PGPUB 2018/0038098 A1 to Wall et al. (“Wall”).
Regarding Claim 2, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter 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 Annotated Fig. 2, specific sizes of the openings 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 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 Dieter 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 Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the mesh structure have an average size of 0.25 inches +/- 0.06 inches (See Annotated Fig. 2, specific sizes of the openings 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 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 Dieter 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 Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter does not specifically disclose wherein the intumescent material is activated at a temperature of at least 270°C (See Dieter Translation of Description Page 2, specific activation temperatures and 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 Dieter 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 Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter 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 Fig. 1 and See Annotated Fig. 2, specific sizes of the openings relative to the mesh structure 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) 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 Dieter 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).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieter.
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the intumescent mesh of Dieter as applied to Claim 7 above, Dieter 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 Translation of Description Page 2 which states “Depending on the type of grid and the amount applied or the thickness of the coating, the spread of a fire can be prevented by 3 to 180 minutes”, however specific failure conditions are not disclosed.).
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 Dieter 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 Dieter is utilized as a fire barrier to keep structural materials below a temperature for a period of time (See Dieter Translation of Description Page 2), 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 Dieter as applied to Claim 1 above, Dieter 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 Translation of Description Page 2 which states “Depending on the type of grid and the amount applied or the thickness of the coating, the spread of a fire can be prevented by 3 to 180 minutes”, however specific temperature surges are not disclosed).
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 Dieter 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 Dieter is utilized as a fire barrier (See Dieter Translation of Description Page 2) and fires are known to yield temperature surges higher than 1250°C over various periods of time.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment along with Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 6/30/2026 prompted the new grounds 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights