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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I and the embodiment of Species 3, shown in Figures 5-8, in the reply filed on 12 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3 and 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guandalini et al. (US 2015/0367603) in view of Engels et al. (EP 2 995 352).
Regarding claim 1, Guandalini discloses a fire-resistant barrier (10, see par. 1) comprising two retaining layers (A1, A2, see par. 37, 38), including one which is corrugated (par. 38) , a layer of aerogel (C, see par. 34), and a layer of intumescent (B, par. 11), wherein the layer of aerogel and the layer of intumescent are between the two corrugated retaining layers (fig. 1; par. 41).
Guandalini does not disclose that both of the retaining layers are corrugated.
Engels teaches a fire-resistant barrier (par. 1; fig. 6) comprising: two corrugated retaining layers (1/1’) and a layer of intumescent (2), wherein the layer of intumescent is between the two corrugated retaining layers (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fire-resistant barrier of Guandalini to make both retaining layers corrugated, as taught by Engels, since this was known to increase rigidity of the layer in the direction perpendicular to the corrugations and increase bendability in the direction parallel to the corrugations, and to provide a space to accommodate the layers held therebetween (Engels, par. 33).
Regarding claim 2, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and further comprising another layer of further fire barriers (D, see par. 25), wherein the layer of intumescent is held between the layers of further fire barriers (par. 25 – “on both sides of a first fire barrier”). Guandalini further discloses that the further fire barriers may be aerogel (par. 34).
Regarding claim 4, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the corrugated retaining layers comprise a steel foil (par. 37), but not explicitly stainless steel. Engels further teaches that the corrugated retaining layers are stainless steel (par. 17). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fire-resistant barrier of Guandalini to make the retaining layers a stainless steel, as taught by Engels, since this was a known material suitable for such an application and capably of withstanding high temperatures for an extended time period (Engels, par. 17).
Regarding claim 5, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the corrugated retaining layers are configured to maintain the shape of the layers of aerogel and intumescent (fig. 1 - when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent; see MPEP 2112.01.I.).
Regarding claim 6, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and Engels further teaches wherein the corrugated retaining layers are configured to permit the fire-resistant barrier to be folded and unfolded (par. 43; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and Engels further teaches wherein the corrugated retaining layers are configured to allow space for the intumescent layer to expand when exposed to heat (par. 33; fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 1, and further wherein under the influence of heat the intumescent layer is configured to form a hard carbonaceous char thereby creating an insulating layer (par. 15).
Regarding claim 9, Guandalini in view of Engels discloses the fire-resistant barrier described regarding claim 8, and Engels further teaches wherein the corrugated retaining layers are configured to retain the carbonaceous char produced by the intumescent layer when exposed to heat (fig. 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fernando et al. (US 8,663,774), Greengrass (US 4,170,675), Bailey (US 5,032,447), Jarosz et al. (US 5,304,408), and Cheetham et al. (US 4,509,559) all disclose fire-resistant barriers having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752