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 amendment filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
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 35 and 36 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.
The phrase “the coating layer” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear if the phrase is referring to the coating layer of first facer composite or the coating layer of the second facer composite.
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 15-19, 23-27, 30 and 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2017/0022704 to Bertucelli in view of USPAP 2008/0095971 to McGee and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2003/0175478 to Leclercq, USPAP 2003/0032351 to Horner, and/or USPAP 2003/0082365 to Geary.
Claims 15 and 39, Bertucelli discloses a method for forming a foam composite construction board, the method comprising: (i) providing a first facer composite including a facer substrate and having a coating layer disposed on a surface of the facer substrate, wherein the coating layer includes a polymeric matrix and expandable graphite dispersed throughout the matrix, where the coating layer has a thickness of from about 20 µm to about 1 mm, the coating layer includes from about 0.5 to about 50 wt. % expandable graphite based on the entire weight of the coating layer; (ii) contacting a developing foam to the coating layer of the first facer composite to thereby sandwich the coating layer between the developing foam and the facer substrate of the first facer composite; (iii) providing a second facer composite including a facer substrate and having a coating layer disposed on a surface of the facer substrate, wherein the coating layer of the second facer composite includes a polymeric matrix and expandable graphite dispersed throughout the matrix, where the coating layer of the second facer composite has a thickness of from about 20 µm to about 1 mm, the coating layer of the second facer composite includes from 0.5 to about 50 wt % expandable graphite based on the entire weight of the coating layer of the second facer composite; (iv) contacting the second facer composite to the developing foam to thereby sandwich the coating layer of the second facer composite between the developing foam and the facer substrate of the second facer composite; and (v) allowing the developing foam to cure while disposed between the first facer composite and the second facer composite to thereby form the foam composite construction board (see entire document including [0003], [0006]-[0014], [0016], [0017], [0023], [0037], [0050], [0056], [0057], [0060] and [0063]-[0065]).
Bertucelli does not appear to mention the polymeric matrix material of the expandable graphite coating layer including the claimed polymer but McGee discloses that it is known in the art to disperse an expandable graphite in the claimed polymer (see entire document including [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the polymeric matrix of the coating layer from any suitable film forming polymeric material, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 16, the facer substrates may be a glass mat [0050].
Claim 17, the facer substrate glass mats may be a non-woven fiberglass mat [0050].
Claim 18, the non-woven fiberglass mats may have a basis weight of from about 50 to about 150 grams per square meter [0008].
Claim 19, the non-woven fiberglass mats may have a thickness of from about 0.015 to about 0.1 inch [0008].
Claim 23, Bertucelli does not appear to mention coating the external surface of the glass fiber (facer) mats with the claimed outer coating but Leclercq discloses that it is known in the art to coat the external surface of a glass fiber mat with the claimed coating to improve appearance, paintability, fire reaction, and fire resistance (see entire document including [0003], [0004], [0008]-[0011] and [0038]-[0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to coat the external surface of the glass fiber (facer) mats, as taught by Leclercq, to improve appearance, paintability, fire reaction, and/or fire resistance.
Claim 24, the outer coating layer has a thickness of from about 0.09 to about 0.3 µm (Example 3 of Leclercq).
Claim 25, the outer coating layer includes from about 0.5 to about 50 wt. % filler based upon the entire weight of the second coating layer ([0040] and [0052] of Leclercq).
Claim 26, the outer coating layer filler is selected from the group consisting of clays, silicates, titanium dioxide, magnesium silicate, mica, alumina trihydrate, antimony trioxide, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, silica, magnesium hydroxide, calcium borate ore, and mixtures thereof ([0040] of Leclercq).
Claim 27, contacting a developing foam to the coating layer of the first facer composite includes depositing a developing foam onto the coating layer disposed on the facer substrate (0057]-[0065]).
Claim 30, the foam body has a density that is greater than 2.5 pounds per cubic foot [0053].
Claims 32 and 33, Bertucelli does not appear to specifically mention providing the facer composites in the form of a roll but Horner and/or Geary disclose that it is known in the art to produce a foam composite construction board by providing the facer composite in the form of a roll, unrolling the facer composite, and positioning the facer composite so that the coating layer is positioned to receive the developing foam (see entire document including [0034] of Horner and [0035]-[0039] and Figure 4 of Geary). Geary discloses that the method is preferred because it is both efficient and economical [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam composite construction board of Bertucelli by any suitable method, such as claimed, because it is both efficient and economical and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 34, Bertucelli discloses that the fire barrier layer (corresponding to the claimed coating layer) “may have” a thickness of 1 to 30 mm [0017]. Therefore, Bertucelli does not require a fire barrier layer thickness of at least 1 mm and McGee discloses that it is known in the art to construct intumescent coatings with a thickness as little as 0.0254 mm and that such a thickness provides foam fire protection [0024]. Plus, thinner coating layer reduces product thickness and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Bertucelli discloses use of a thicker coating layer of 1 to 30 mm, there is motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus to explore thickness levels below that range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fire barrier layer of Bertucelli with a thickness of less than 0.5 mm, for applications desiring a thinner product and/or reduced manufacturing time and/or expense and/or because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant's claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender's 'suitable' range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that '[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]' falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore 'not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness' made out by Zehender."). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 35 and 36, the coating layer includes from 3.0 to about 30 wt % expandable graphite based on the entire weight of the coating [0060].
Claim 37, the coating layer of the first facer composite and the coating layer of the second facer composite may include a non-halogenated flame retardant ([0012] and [0031]).
Claim 38, the contacting the second facer composite to the developing foam produces a pre-cured composite, and further comprises placing the pre-cured composite within a laminator [0057].
Claims 15-19, 23-27, 30 and 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2008/0095971 to McGee in view of USPAP 2017/0022704 to Bertucelli and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2003/0175478 to Leclercq, USPAP 2003/0032351 to Horner, and/or USPAP 2003/0082365 to Geary.
Claims 15 and 19, McGee discloses a method for forming a foam composite construction board, the method comprising: (i) providing a first facer composite including a facer substrate and having a coating layer disposed on a surface of the facer substrate, wherein the coating layer includes a polymeric matrix and expandable graphite dispersed throughout the matrix, where the coating layer has a thickness of from about 20 µm to about 1 mm, the coating layer includes from about 0.5 to about 50 wt. % expandable graphite based on the entire weight of the coating layer, and the polymeric matrix of the coating layer includes a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyolefins, styrene-butadiene copolymer, polyvinyl chlorides, acrylics, methacrylics, silicones, and functional copolymers thereof; and (ii) contacting a cured foam to the coating layer to thereby sandwich the coating layer between the foam and the facer substrate (see entire document including [0001], [0015]-[0024] and [0029]-[0031]).
McGee does not appear to specifically mention providing a second facer composite, identical to the first facer composite, on the opposite side of the foam but Bertucelli discloses that it is known in the art to position at least one intumescent fire barrier layer on each side of a foam core (see entire document including [0012], [0017], [0037] and [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a second facer composite, identical to the first facer composite, on the opposite side of the foam of McGee, to provide additional fire protection and/or based on the intended use.
McGee does not appear to specifically mention contacting a developing foam to the coating layers and then allowing the developing foam to cure and thereby form the foam composite construction board but Bertucelli discloses that it is known in the art to construct a foam composite construction board by the claimed process ([0057] and [0064]-[0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam composite construction board by any suitable method, such as claimed and disclosed by Bertucelli, to directly bond the layers and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 16, the facer substrate is a glass mat ([0017], [0019], [0027] and [0031]).
Claim 17, the glass mat is a non-woven fiberglass mat ([0017], [0019], [0027] and [0031]).
Claim 18, McGee does not appear to mention the non-woven fiberglass mat basis weight but Bertucelli discloses that it is known in the art to use a non-woven fiberglass mat with a basis weight of from about 50 to about 150 grams per square meter [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the non-woven fiberglass mat with any suitable basis weight, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known basis weight on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 19, the non-woven fiberglass mat has a thickness of from about 0.015 to about 0.1 inch [0044].
Claim 23, McGee does not appear to mention coating the external surface of the glass fiber mat with the claimed outer coating but Leclercq discloses that it is known in the art to coat the external surface of a glass fiber mat with the claimed coating to improve appearance, paintability, fire reaction, and fire resistance (see entire document including [0003], [0004], [0008]-[0011] and [0038]-[0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to coat the external surfaces of the glass fiber mats, as taught by Leclercq, to improve appearance, paintability, fire reaction, and/or fire resistance.
Claim 24, the outer coating layer has a thickness of from about 0.09 to about 0.3 µm (Example 3 of Leclercq).
Claim 25, the outer coating layer includes from about 0.5 to about 50 wt. % filler based upon the entire weight of the second coating layer ([0040] and [0052] of Leclercq).
Claim 26, the filler is selected from the group consisting of clays, silicates, titanium dioxide, magnesium silicate, mica, alumina trihydrate, antimony trioxide, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, silica, magnesium hydroxide, calcium borate ore, and mixtures thereof ([0040] of Leclercq).
Claim 27, the step of contacting a developing foam to the coating layer of the first facer composite includes depositing a developing foam onto the coating layer disposed on the facer substrate ([0057] and [0064]-[0066] of Bertucelli).
Claim 30, McGee does not appear to mention the specific foam density but Bertucelli discloses that it is known in the art to construct foam with a density of greater than or less than 2.5 pounds per cubic foot [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam from any suitable density, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 32 and 33, McGee does not appear to specifically mention providing the facer composite in the form of a roll but Horner and/or Geary disclose that it is known in the art to produce a foam composite construction board by providing the facer composite in the form of a roll, unrolling the facer composite, and positioning the facer composite so that the coating layer is facing upward to receive the developing foam (see entire document including [0034] of Horner and [0035]-[0039] and Figure 4 of Geary). Geary discloses that the method is preferred because it is both efficient and economical [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the foam composite construction board of McGee by any suitable method, such as claimed, because it is both efficient and economical and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 34, the coating layer has a thickness of less than 0.5 mm [0024].
Claims 35 and 36, the coating layer includes from 3.0 to about 30 wt % expandable graphite based on the entire weight of the coating [0022].
Claim 37, McGee does not appear to mention the coating layer including a flame retardant but Bertucelli discloses that it is known in the art to include a non-halogenated flame retardant in facer coatings ([0012] and [0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a non-halogenated flame retardant in facer coatings to provide improved flame retardancy.
Claim 38, Bertucelli discloses the contacting the second facer composite to the developing foam produces a pre-cured composite, and further comprises placing the pre-cured composite within a laminator [0057].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Bertucelli fails to teach or suggest two identical fire barrier layers, one on each side of the foam core. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bertucelli discloses that the panel may include a second facing on the opposite side of the foam layer and that a further fire barrier layer may be present between the second facing and the foam core and that “This fire barrier layer” may be the same as the first fire barrier layer [0012].
The applicant also asserts that Bertucelli fails to teach or suggest contacting the second facer composite to the developing foam to thereby sandwich the coating layer of the second facer composite between the developing foam and the facer substrate of the second facer composite. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Bertucelli teaches the claimed second facer composite, and Bertucelli discloses the claimed manufacturing process [0057].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights