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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on August 27, 2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered. Claim 28 has been amended. As such, Claims 19-30 and 32-34 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 19-27 withdrawn from consideration.
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 28-30, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spanish Patent Application Publication No. 2,538,576 to Sanchez et al. (an English translation obtained from the PE2E database is referenced herein) (“Sanchez”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0225429 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) or U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0336335 to Okawa et al. (“Okawa”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0150749 to Schuren et al. (“Schuren”).
With regard to Claim 28, Sanchez discloses a natural fiber object comprising seagrass fibers, such as Posidonia oceanica fibers, combined with thermoplastic fibers to provide a nonwoven panel using a thermocompression process. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Sanchez discloses that the thermoplastic fibers provide a binding agent as they are heated to soften and create bonding with rest of the fibers to provide a manipulable nonwoven composite. Page 4. Sanchez discloses that the Posidonia oceanica fibers and the thermoplastic fibers are homogenously mixed, then subjected to heat and pressure to thermally bond the composite material, followed by cooling. Page 5. Sanchez does not disclose a fire retardant being mixed with the seagrass fibers and the thermoplastic fibers, initially, prior to the thermal bonding step, followed by coating a fire retardant onto the surface of the composite after the bonding step, such that the surface of the nonwoven panel possesses a concentration of fire retardant greater on the surface compared to halfway through a thickness between two opposite sides. Nonetheless, such a construction of fire retardant gradient throughout a panel material is well known in the art of constructing such panels. Yu is also related to panel materials formed from reinforcing fibers and binder material. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Yu teaches that such panels can be rendered flame retardant by providing a substantially uniform distribution of flame retardant material to a fiber composite “and then additional flame retardant material (which may be the same or different) is added to one side of the prepreg to provide a gradient distribution. Such additional flame retardant material can be added directly to the prepreg , e.g., by spraying powdered flame retardant material or coating a solution comprising the flame retardant material.” Paragraph [0076]. Okawa is also related to fiber-reinforced structures used to provide paneling. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Okawa teaches distribution of a flame retardant can vary, noting that “[t]he possible states for the distribution of the powdered flame retardant 21 include, for example, the case in which the powdered flame retardant 21 is present only at the surface layer; the case in which the powdered flame retardant 21 is present only in the vicinity of the surface layer and within the openings in the vicinity of the surface layer; the case in which, as shown in FIG. 4, the concentration of the powdered flame retardant 21 is higher in particular in the vicinity of the surface layer and in the openings in the vicinity of the surface layer and in which the concentration of the powdered flame retardant 21 is lower in the interior of the fiber structure 10; and the case in which the powdered flame retardant 21 exhibits a gradient distribution moving from the surface layer to the interior of the fiber structure 10.” Paragraph [0045] (emphasis added); see Figure 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a fire retardant in the homogenous mixture of seagrass fibers and binder prior to thermal consolidation of the paneling in order to provide a base amount of fire retardant throughout the thickness of the panel, followed by an additional coating on the surface of the nonwoven panel such that the concentration of fire retardant is greater on the surface compared to halfway through a thickness between two opposite sides in the nonwoven panel disclosed by Sanchez in order to increase the flame resistance of the composite material in a dynamic manner, such that the concentration of fire retardant is greater at the surface, which possesses more exposure to possible fires, as shown to be well known and thoroughly established in the nonwoven panel art by Yu or Okawa. The combination of Sanchez with Yu and Okawa does not disclose the amount of fire retardant on the surface is 0.5% to 5% w/w greater compared to the halfway point of the thickness of the natural fiber object. Nonetheless, such a quantitative amount in a flame retardant gradient is known in the art. Schuren is also related to fiber-based molded sheets useful in paneling materials and comprising a flame retardant distributed non-uniformly, either symmetrically or non-symmetrically, across the thickness of the panel. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Schuren discloses that a suitable distribution of flame retardant includes an amount of 10% at the outer surfaces of the panel compared to an amount of 6% or 5% at the center of the thickness of the panel. Figure 3 and paragraph [0037] (profiles d and e, respectively). Schuren also provides examples wherein the amount of fire retardant on the surface is 0.5% to 5% w/w greater compared to the halfway point of the thickness of the natural fiber object. See, e.g., Example 1 (surface flame retardant is 3%, central core flame retardant is 1.2%) and Example 2 (surface flame retardant is 4%, central core flame retardant is 1%). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide flame retardant in the fibrous panel disclosed by the combination of Sanchez with Yu and Osaka at an amount of 0.5% to 5% w/w greater at the surface compared to halfway through the thickness of the fibrous panel in order to provide improved flame retardant performance while saving on the amount of flame retardant agent needed, as shown to be known by Schuren. Paragraph [0048]. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claim 29 and 34, Sanchez discloses using seagrass fibers in an amount of 60% to 80% by weight and thermoplastic binding fibers in an amount of 20% to 40% by weight. Page 6. Yu teaches that the flame retardant material can be present in an amount meet standardized flame protection tests. Paragraph [0008]. Yu discloses that a suitable amount of flame retardant can be about 2% to 30%, preferably 3% to 25%, by weight. Paragraph [0162]. Schuren discloses that the total amount of flame retardant can be in the range of 5% to 10%, by weight. Figure 3, profile e. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the flame retardant in an amount of 1% to 40%, or in an amount of 5% to 25%, by weight, since the amount of flame retardant is a result effective variable that, when increased, increases resistance to flames, but that when decreased, allows the panel to retain its fiber and binder characteristics, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980). With regard to Claim 30, Sanchez teaches that other natural fibers can be present in an amount of 0%, page 6, which represents an exclusion of other organic fibers. With regard to Claim 32, Sanchez discloses that the thermoplastic binding fibers and the seagrass fibers are mixed using high shear agitators to provide homogenous dispersion of the fiber materials. Page 4.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Yu or Okawa, and Schuren as applied to Claim 28 above, and further in view of Russian Patent No. 1,781,257 (cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated October 27, 2023) (“the ‘257 Patent”).
Sanchez does not disclose the density of the nonwoven panel. The ‘257 Patent is also related to insulation paneling that includes seagrass materials. Abstract. The ‘257 Patent teaches that such paneling material can be provided with a density ranging from 200 to 400 kg/m3. Id. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the seagrass-based paneling disclosed by Sanchez, as combined with Yu or Okawa, and Schuren, with a density in the range of 200 to 400 kg/m3 in order to provide a suitable density for use in insulating paneling, as shown to be known by the ‘257 Patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 28-30 and 32-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. To the extent that the arguments may still apply to the new grounds of rejection, then those arguments are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Example 2 demonstrates an unexpected result of achieving a Class B fire classification using an additional 0.5% to 5% w/w at the surface of the natural fiber object, and that the person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that a much larger amount of fire retardant would be necessary to achieve that result. The Examiner disagrees. It is noted that if the Applicant intends to rely on examples in the specification to show non-obviousness, the Applicant should clearly state how the examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. Applicant has not shown that Example 2 is commensurate in scope with the claims. Example 2 provides a natural fiber object with a density of 120 kg/cubic meter. However, the claims are not limited to natural fiber objects having this density. Example 2 requires that the natural fiber object comprise 10% binding agent, 71% fiber, and 19% fire retardant. However, the claims are not limited to natural fiber objects having this specific quantity of binding agent, fiber, and fire retardant. Example 2 does not specify the add-on amount of fire retardant to the surface of the natural fiber object. It would necessarily have to be some specific value, but that value is not provided. As such, it is not clear how this parameter would be commensurate in scope with the additional 0.5% to 5% w/w at the surface of the natural fiber object. Additionally, there are no comparative examples in the application that align with the disclosures of any of the cited references. The newly cited Schuren reference addresses the quantitative aspect of the flame retardant gradient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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 D. McConnell can be reached at 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights