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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because it depends from a canceled claim. For examining purposes, claim 6 is assumed to depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the first component comprises vermiculite while claim 2 recites that it further comprises clay. There doesn’t appear to be support for this in the specification which discloses the material as “vermiculite (clay)” which implies they are the same. Hence there being no disclosure for clay in addition to vermiculate in the first solid component.
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 2 and 8 is 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.
In regard to claim 2, the claim is indefinite because it recites that the first solid component further (in addition to) comprises clay which is confusing since the specification discloses the material as “vermiculite (clay)” which implies they are the same, and, by definition vermiculite is a clay material.
In regard to claim 8, the claim is indefinite because “the outer structure of the door” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further, the claims are directed toward a core for a door, thus it is unclear where is the outer structure of the door.
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 1, 2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. US 2018/0201838 A1 (hereinafter ‘Andrews’).
In regard to claims 1, 2 and 6, Andrews teaches a fire-retardant core for a door formed with a central cavity, comprising:
a first solid component (additives) comprising vermiculite (see [0168]) and further comprising clay (see “china clay” [0164]);
a second solid component comprising nanofibers (see “cellulosic fibers” [0168]. Although the cellulosic fibers are not being explicitly disclosed as nanofibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cellulosic fibers as nanofibers so as to increase the mechanical properties of the material while staying light weight);
a third component comprising borate (boron) (see [0085]); and
wherein the first, second and third components are blended effectively (see [0066]) to fill the central cavity, and to provide a fire retardant quality to the door (note that per MPEP, the material of Andrew is fully capable of filling the cavity and provide a fire retardant quality to the door because Andrews is concerned with creating a flame retardant material).
In regard to claim 8, Andrews teaches a material for making articles such doors (see [0173]), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an outer structure for the door comprising sawdust, resin and/or waxes because these are commonly used materials for door structures, and the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Andrews does not teach that vermiculite has value in improving fire-resistant in a non-polyolefin based material. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. vermiculite in non-polyolefin material) are not rejected in the rejected claims, neither they are discussed in the specification.
In response to applicant's argument that Ganesan discusses the use of fillers, in the context of reinforcing material but does not provide any motivation to select nanofibers for improved fire-resistance in a door structure, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (See MPEP 2114).
In response to the Affidavit filed on 01/06/2026, it is noted that although the document is titled “Declaration of David Reed, submitted under 35 U.S.C. 1.130” the document appears to be an Affidavit filed under 37 U.S.C. 1.132 (see MPEP 716).
The filed Affidavit is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 8 based upon 35 U.S.C. as set forth in the last Office action because:
The evidence presented is unrelated to what is being claimed. The claims do not recite any amounts of the components of the door core. The claimed subject matter amounts to a core for a door comprising vermiculite, nanofibers and boron that are mixed to fill a central cavity of the door.
As evidenced by the prior art, such compositions for doors are notoriously well known in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 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, Brian E Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights