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 1/20/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Previously rejected claims 4–7, 9, and 10 have been amended to overcome previous indefinite issues. Accordingly, the 112(b) is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1–18 remain pending, while claims 13–15 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1–12, 16, and 17 are examined below.
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) 1–7, 10–12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petroski (US 2014/0338830 A1) in view of Roberts (US 2007/0089899 A1).
Petroski teaches the formation of a composite laminate comprising an inorganic layer 100 and a composite reinforcement layer(s) 102, 400, wherein the inorganic layer is made from mica and the composite reinforcement layers may comprise reinforcement glass fibers impregnated with B-staged thermosetting epoxy. Petroski abstract, ¶¶ 12–13, 15, 18, 19, Figs. 1–4.
Petroski fails to teach that the mica layer comprises at least 50 g/m2 and is impregnated with a third, B-staged curable thermosetting resin in an amount of at least 40% by weight based on the mica layer.
Roberts teaches the formation of an insulating prepreg material comprising a glass woven fabric with a mica flake layer disposed thereon, wherein the insulating material is impregnated with B-staged epoxy resin. Roberts abstract, ¶¶ 6, 17–19. The prepreg material may comprise mica weights of at least 120 g/m2 and B-staged curable thermosetting resin in an amount of up to 50 weight percent of the prepreg material. Id. ¶ 6, Table III.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the Roberts mica prepreg material for use as the inorganic layer in Petroski as the prepreg material is useful as an insulator and suitable for use in high temperature environments. Roberts abstract.
Claim 3 is rejected as an additional mica layer 100 may be used to replace reinforcement layers 102, 400 to form a sandwich structure. See Petroski ¶ 20. Claim 6 is rejected as the mica flakes may be calcined or uncalcined. Roberts ¶ 19.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petroski and Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takehara (US 2023/0220170 A1).
Petroski and Roberts fail to teach the use of a B-staged thermosetting resin comprising a flame retardant additive.
Takehara teaches the formation of a fiber-reinforced composite comprising thermosetting polymers, such as epoxy resin, wherein the epoxy resin may further comprise flame retardants, such as magnesium hydroxide or ammonium polyphosphate. Takehara abstract, ¶¶ 110–114.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have included the flame retardants of Takehara in the B-staged epoxy of Petroski motivated by the desire to make the composite more flame retardant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Petroski is concerned about the flammability of resin systems and is directed to a heat-activated coating to promote adhesion of a mica layer, but does not contemplate an impregnated mica layer. As such, Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the mica layer of Petroski with the impregnated mica layer of Roberts due to potential flammability based upon the use of polymer resin. This argument is unpersuasive as inorganic layer of Petroski contains mica to provide fire resistance may also be polymer based. See Petroski ¶¶ 12, 16. Additionally, the inorganic layer of Petroski may require the use of heat-activated polymer to assist in bonding the inorganic layer to an underlying composite laminate. See id. ¶ 16. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to look to Roberts for guidance as to suitable mica levels and types of polymer useful in making a heat-resistant polymer and mica composite, particularly when the rest of the Petroski composite layers may use B-staged polymer. See id. ¶ 18.
Applicant further contends that the claimed invention provides unexpected results in that Tables 3 and 4 of the Specification show that cured C-staged inventive composite panels containing the claimed micaeous prepreg laminate demonstrate significantly superior performance in flammability relative to composites that do not contain the micaeous prepreg laminates. This argument is unpersuasive. Both references applied as prior art clearly demonstrate the beneficial heat and flammability resistance of the use of mica. And as such, it would be expected that a composite containing mica would have improved heat and flame resistance relative to those without.
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
Prosecution Insights