DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
It is noted that the specification has inconsistent paragraph enumeration where there is an additional digit from paragraph 100 onward. For example, paragraphs 1-99 are enumerated with four digits [0001]-[0099], and paragraph 100 and onward are enumerated with five digits as [00100] and so on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, “total thickness” is indefinite because the thickness (understood to be a linear measurement of distance) of a material cannot be determined by values given in units of density alone. For examination purposes, the range of values referred to as “thickness” is interpreted in terms of coating density given in grams per square-meter.
Regarding claim 7, the claim as written appears to be future intended use of the composition of claim 1, rendering the scope of claim 1 as indefinite. It is unclear whether the applicant intends to include an applying step (which may be an impermissible use of method and product limitations in the same claim) or if being applied with groove rod or paint roller imparts a limitation on the composition, and with such divergent possibilities the scope cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, this claim is interpreted as the coating composition of claim 1 capable of being applied in a manner consistent with a groove rod or paint roller.
Regarding claim 19, “ fire retardant modified aldehyde-based resin” is indefinite because the manner in which the aldehyde-based resin is modified is unclear. For examination purposes, the term “modified” as applied to the resin is taken to mean a formaldehyde-based resin altered or added to such that it obtains the quality of increased fire retardance.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is indefinite because is unclear what is meant by “emulsified fire retardant aldehyde-based resin”. For examination purposes, claim 20 is interpreted to reference the applicant’s preferred formaldehyde-based resins in Example 7 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stefani (US 20210307381 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stefani teaches a reduced ignition coating composition containing 3% to 8% calcium carbonate particles (as filler stated in [0077]) and 2% to 20% of cellulose derivative (as sodium salt of carboxymethyl cellulose) in a gel [0067]. The examiner notes that this constitutes an acceptable binder and filler as described by the applicant in paragraphs [0049] and [0066] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 3, Stefani teaches a paper overlay/base web on which the reduced ignition composition is applied [0070][0078].
Regarding claim 6, Stefani teaches the coating as applied to the paper in an amount between 0.5-10 gsm [0016][0073].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Stefani applies as explained above and further teaches a colloidal microcrystalline cellulose gel [0063][0067].
Regarding claims 13-16, Stefani applies as explained above and further teaches an inorganic intumescent coating component in the form of aluminum hydroxide (also known as aluminum trihydrate) [0011][0044].
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Stefani applies as explained above and further teaches a urea-formaldehyde resin and a melamine-formaldehyde resin (as a wet strength agent added to paper that is coated in Stefani’s reduced ignition composition) [0053].
Regarding claim 19, Stefani teaches a paper overlay treated with urea-formaldehyde or melamine-formaldehyde resins and is further coated with reduced ignition composition [0053] [0070]. By virtue of the coating being applied to the paper and resin, this constitutes a fire retardant modified formaldehyde-based resin.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbon (US 20210108087 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Herbon teaches a fire resistant geopolymer composition comprising a sodium silicate solution, metakaolin, and siloxane (as filler) (Table 4).
Regarding claim 3, Herbon teaches surfaces coated or impregnated with the fire resistant composition [0012], further teaching impregnated paper as an overlay (gasket) [0067] [0138].
Regarding claim 4, Herbon teaches a fire resistant composition that cures at 70°C [0178].
Regarding claim 5, since Herbon teaches the fire resistant geopolymer composition of claim 1 comprising a sodium silicate solution, metakaolin, and a siloxane filler, presumably the composition would display a flexural strength in the claimed range. The examiner notes that the applicant attributes the quality of strength as a benefit of geopolymer compositions in paragraph [0056] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 7, Herbon teaches a fire resistant composition as being rolled onto a surface in a manner consistent with a paint roller [0148].
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Herbon applies as above and further teaches an organic intumescent coating component in the form of Promaseal-LFC (an expanded graphite intumescent component) [0235].
Claims 1-3 and 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihsan (US 20170240470 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Ihsan teaches a geopolymer coating composition comprising an aqueous alkali metal silicate solution, metakaolin, cellulosic fibers, and a mesh layer of organic fibers (paper) [0044][0045].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ihsan applies as explained above and further teaches aerogel as a filler [0039]. The examiner notes that aerogel as claimed is optional.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihsan (US 20170240470 A1) in view of Liu (The Application of Silica-Based Aerogel Board on the Fire Resistance and Thermal Insulation Performance Enhancement of Existing External Wall System Retrofit).
Regarding claim 10, Ihsan applies as explained above, but does not teach particular types of aerogels. Liu teaches a silica-based aerogel as being useful for its fire resistant properties (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the silica aerogel taught by Liu in the composition taught by Ihsan.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefani (US 20210307381 A1) in view of Ihsan (US 20170240470 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Stefani applies as explained above, teaching a reduced ignition coating comprising a gel containing sodium salt of carboxymethyl cellulose [0067] and further teaches the gel coating in conjunction with kaolin (a mineral-based fire retardant) [0011] [0077]. However, Stefani does not teach aerogel. Ihsan teaches aerogels as useful for introducing voids into the geopolymer matrix [0067]. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to introduce voids from aerogel into the geopolymer matrix, applying the teaching from Stefani where the gel is combined (infused) with kaolin, and infuse the aerogel voids in Ihsan with a mineral-based fire retardant like kaolin.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefani (US 20210307381 A1) in view of Feng (US 20030221775 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Stefani applies as explained above but does not teach the applicant’s exemplified resins, specifically resorcinol-formaldehyde resin and phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde resin. Feng teaches resorcinol-formaldehyde resins and phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde resins used in composite wood products to improve fire retardance [002] [007]. As interpreted above, these resins constitute the claimed resin. A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention, understanding the usefulness of the resins found in Feng for fire retardant applications, would have found it obvious to combine the resins from Feng with the coating composition of Stefani to improve the fire retardant properties of coated wood products.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dierschke (US 20150080500 A1) teaches geopolymer binders (alkali silicates and metakaolin), formaldehyde polycondensation products.
Vick (US 5543487 A) teaches phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde and resorcinol-formaldehyde resins.
Dong (CN 103787621 A), teaches a geopolymer composite material comprising urea-formaldehyde resin.
Morsy (US 20160130811 A1) teaches fire resistant geopolymer (alkali silicates and metakaolin).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 4/7/2026
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights