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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 11, 16, 17, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laberge Lebel et al. (US 2022/0282672).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 11, 16, 17, and 22-25, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material comprising first and second fabric layers in contact with/adhered to each other (Laberge Lebel para 41, 51, items 31) where the first and second fabric layers can separate from each other under the application of heat at a specific (first) portion, but remain adhered in (second) portions not subjected to heat (Laberge Lebel para 41, 50, 51). Laberge Lebel further teaches that the cloth layers may be a fiberglass (Laberge Lebel para 42), and that the expandable (“configured to expand”) fire-resistant material may be vermiculite, graphite or other intumescent materials (Laberge Lebel para 36, 37, 40, 51).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1. While Laberge Lebel does not explicitly use the word ‘coating,’ Laberge Lebel does teach ‘embedding’ the intumescent material into one of the cloth layers (Laberge Lebel para 46).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laberge Lebel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2008/00638875).
Regarding claim 7, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1.
Laberge Lebel is silent with respect to the presence of basalt for the fire-resistant material.
Laberge Lebel and Robinson are related in the field of heat resistant laminates. Robinson teaches the use of basalt fibers (Robinson para 90, 137) because they have a thermal resistance of at least 400 °C providing laminates with particularly high heat resistance (Robinson para 137). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate basalt fibers into the fire resistant material of Laberge Lebel because basalt has particularly high heat resistance.
Claims 8-10, 13, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laberge Lebel as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (JP 2008-208625, Espacenet translation, attached).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 18-21, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1.
Laberge Lebel is silent with respect to the adhesive used being a fabric or wood glue, and thus to the threshold amount of heat for interlaminar separation being 60 °C or greater.
Laberge Lebel and Ueda are related in the field of heat resistant composites that expand on application of heat (Ueda para 25). Ueda teaches a multilayer laminate (Ueda para 24) that utilizes polyvinyl acetate (wood glue) to bind individual layers together (Ueda para 15). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polyvinyl acetate of Ueda as the adhesive of Laberge Lebel because polyvinyl acetate is a known effective adhesive in heat resistant laminates.
Further, as this is the same material as utilized by Applicant, it would intrinsically possess the same properties such as threshold amount of heat to lose adhesion between layers being 60 °C or greater.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 10, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1. Laberge Lebel further teaches that the fire-resistant material may be mixed with a polymer, particularly elastomers (Lagerge Lebel para 35, 37).
Laberge Lebel is silent with respect to the polymer being polyvinyl alcohol, acrylic, styrene-butadiene rubber, or combinations thereof.
Laberge Lebel and Ueda are related in the field of heat resistant composites that expand on application of heat (Ueda para 25). Ueda further teaches that styrene-butadiene rubber and acrylics may be used as a matrix for the expandable material from a view of not degrading the heat resistance (Ueda para 26-27). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize either a styrene-butadiene rubber or an acrylic resin as taught by Ueda as the matrix material of Laberge Lebel because this would provide a matrix that does not degrade the heat resistance of the laminate.
Regarding claim 13, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1.
Laberge Lebel is silent with respect to the composite material thickness.
Laberge Lebel and Ueda are related in the field of heat resistant composites that expand on application of heat (Ueda para 25). Ueda teaches an appropriate thickness is from 0.1-4 mm, less than 0.1 mm the fire resistance degrades above 4 mm, the overall thickness becomes excessive. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the composite material of Laberge Lebel to be from 0.1-4 mm as taught by Ueda because this provides a good balance of heat resistance and thin material. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the thickness taught by Laberge Lebel in view of Ueda overlaps with the instantly claimed thickness and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laberge Lebel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richardson, III et al. (US 2015/0353184).
Regarding claim 12, Laberge Lebel teaches a heat resistant composite material as above for claim 1.
Laberge Lebel is silent with respect to the composite further comprising a binder between the first and second layers at an amount of less than 2 grams/m2.
Laberge Lebel and Richardson are related in the field of multilayer flame barrier laminates. Richardson teaches using an areal weight of adhesive between layers of 2-40 grams/m2 (Richardson, abs). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the adhesive of Richardson and utilize that amount of adhesive in the laminate of Laberge Lebel. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the amount of adhesive taught by Laberge Lebel in view of Richardson overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of adhesive and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/10/26