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 Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of all the claims would not be unduly burdensome. This is not found persuasive. Groups I and II are classified separately as discussed in the restriction requirement dated April 23, 2026. Separate classification shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also requires a separate field of search. This is sufficient to demonstrate a serious search and/or examination burden. See MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab (WO 2022106698 A1, attached).
Regarding claim 1-3, 10-11, and 14-15, Raab teaches an intumescent composition for additive manufacturing including 20-80 wt% of at least one binder polymer, 20-80 wt% of intumescent additive that comprises expandable graphite, and 0-78 wt% filler (p. 3, lines 7-9). The binder may be semi-crystalline polyamide (p. 6, lines 1 and 33-34). The intumescent additive (expandable graphite) may have particle size in the range of 0.05-1.5 mm (50-1500 microns) (p. 10, lines 13-14 and 18-20). Raab permits, but does not require, addition of phosphate additives as further intumescent additives (p. 8, lines 17-25). These prior art ranges encompass the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range encompasses the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Monsheimer (US 7906063 B2).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 12, Raab remains as applied to claim 1 above. Raab’s expandable graphite may have particle size in the range of 0.05-1.5 mm (50-1500 microns). Raab is silent as to the particle size of polymer binder that may be used. In a related field of endeavor, Monsheimer teaches copolyamide powder having monomer units including laurolactam and caprolactam, that may be used in selective layer-by layer sintering (col. 3, lines 41-43; col. 4, lines 51-54). The polyamide powder may have an average particle size ranging from 10 to 250 microns (col. 6, lines 35-36). Monsheimer further teaches that the copolyamide may have caprolactam content ranging from 0-50% of total lactam content (col. 9-10, examples 2-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the copolyamide powder of Monsheimer for use in the composition of Raab to arrive at the claimed invention, and because of the art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. These prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panse (US 2009/246,485 A1). NGS (NGS Naturgraphit, "Expandable Graphite for Flame Retardant Application," accessed June 8, 2026, attached) is cited as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 8, Raab remains as applied to claim 1 above. Raab further specifies that intimate admixing of the different components permits a composition having a homogeneous distribution of all components while still maintaining a useful balance between processability, handling strength, and intumescent properties (p. 11, lines 26-30). Intimate admixing may be performed by conventional techniques known to those skilled in the art (p. 12, lines 2-3). However, Raab does not specify that mixing may be conducted by coating or encapsulating the expandable graphite in the polymer binder. In the same field of endeavor, Panse teaches an intumescent composition having expandable graphite that is encapsulated in polymer binding, which may be polyamide having a melt temperature of 280℃ or lower, prior to expansion (p. 3, [0031] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the encapsulated expandable graphite of Panse for use in the composition of Raab to arrive at the claimed invention, and to ensure an intimate blend of the components, as taught by Panse (p. 3, [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Raab in view of Panse remains as applied to claim 8 above. Raab further teaches that the binder polymer may be semi-crystalline, and may further have a melting point in the range of 100-220℃ (p. 7, lines 28-31). However, Raab is silent as to the onset temperature of the graphite. NGS teaches that it is known in the art that expandable graphite naturally occurs in particle sizes ranging from less than 45 microns to more than 500 microns, with onset expansion temperatures ranging from 150 to 280℃ (p. 3). This results in polymer having a melting point 50-130℃ lower than the graphite onset temperature. This prior art range overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Raab in view of Monsheimer and Panse, as discussed above. However, the combined prior art fails to teach an expandable graphite having the claimed Hausner ratio. As such, the instant claim contains a limitation not found in the prior art, and is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights