Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/282,078

AQUEOUS WATER-BASED BONDING SYSTEM FOR FLAME-RETARDANT COMPOSITE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Examiner
TATESURE, VINCENT
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
193 granted / 426 resolved
-19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
465
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
63.3%
+23.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 426 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 with traverse of claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15 and 17 in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not an undue burden for the Office to examine all claims as pending. This is found persuasive for claim 22, but not persuasive for claims 23-29. This is not found persuasive because the groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the same technical feature, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art as set forth below, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 23-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method and composition, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 14, 2026. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2009/0246485 to Panse in view of JP2004204193 to Harashina. Regarding Claim 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 22 Panse teaches a textile and garment comprising said textile, comprising a meltable layer , a heat reactive material and an additional layer such as a textile backer of aramid or glass fibers (Panse, abstract, paragraph [0005], paragraph [0022]). Panse teaches that the textile composite has an afterflame of less than about 2 seconds (Id., paragraph [0048]). Panse teaches that the heat reactive material is applied in a discontinuous pattern to the layers and comprises an acrylic resin, an expandable graphite expanding at least 900 micrometers upon heating to about 280 degrees Celsius, and a flame retardant additive such as melamine (Id., paragraph [0005], [0029], [0031]). Since the claim is directed to a textile composite, the term “aqueous” applies only to the intermediate state of the composition. Panse teaches the heat reactive material comprises up to 50% of graphite relative to the polymer resin mixture (Id., paragraph [0034]). Panse does not appear to teach the inclusion of at least one polyhydroxy compound. However, Harashina teaches a highly flame retardant resin composition comprising a base resin of acrylic and one or more flame retardants such as expandable graphite, melamine and triols with a molecular weight less than about 1,000 g/mol such as glycerin (propane-1,2,3- triol) (Harashina, abstract, paragraph [0016], [0038], [0098], [0106], [0108]). Harashina teaches that these flame retardants are included in an amount of 0 to 200 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of resin (Id., paragraph [0082]), which overlaps the claimed range of 3 to 10 wt.% of polyhydroxy compound , 10 to 60% of expandable graphite and polyhydroxy compound and 40-90wt% of acrylic polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite fabric of Panse and to include the polyhydroxy flame retardant compound of Harashina motivated by the desire to further provide improved flame resistance to the composite structure. Regarding Claim 4 Regarding the dry peel strength, although the prior art does not disclose the dry peel strength as measured in DIN 54310, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention (meltable layer, acrylic resin with expandable graphite, and additional layer). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Regarding Claim 17 The prior art combination teaches that the resin may include one or more polymers selected from acrylic and polyester but does not appear to teach that the acrylic resin is utilized in an amount of at least 25 wt.% (Panse, paragraph [0031]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust, vary and optimize the range, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite textile having a heat reactive material comprising two or more polymer materials in desired proportions (such as 50/50) based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panse in view of Harashina as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 17 and 22 above, in view of USPN. 10,927,301 to Muenzenberger. Regarding Claim 15 Panse does not appear to teach that the acrylic polymer comprises acrylamide repeat units. Therefore, it would have been necessary and obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the prior art for exemplary acrylic polymers used in flame protective composites. Muenzenberger provides this conventional teaching, showing acrylic compositions for use in fire protection which may contain expandable graphite and additional flame retardant additives wherein the acrylic polymer may be formed of acrylamide repeat units (Muenzenberger, abstract, column 3, lines 4-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of Panse, and to use the specific acrylic resin containing acrylamide repeat units, as taught by Muenzenberger, motivated by the desire to form a conventional flame protective composite comprising Acrylic monomers which are known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in flame resistant applications. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST. 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 Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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. /VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577704
FIBER SHEET, ELECTROSPINNING DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING FIBER SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566048
HIGH BUOYANCY COMPOSITE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559653
Articles with an Adhesive Layer
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559865
POLYCARBONATE FIBERS, FIBER STRUCTURE AND RESIN COMPOSITE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12514334
LIGHTWEIGHT KNITTED UPPER AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+31.4%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 426 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month