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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-18 and 20-39 in the reply filed on 6/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/26.
Examiner note: In the Requirement for Restriction/Election, dated 4/29/26, the Examiner made a typo in the groups of claims (e.g., 1-8 and 20-39), and the Attorney responded in kind. This grouping, e.g., Group I, Claims 1-18 and 20-39, is proper and examination will proceed accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “umber” in line 3 appears to be a misspelling. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22, 23, and 25 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the carrier sheet " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the carrier sheet " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 is rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 22.
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, 4, 9, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller (US 20150140269 A1) in view of Wooler et al (US 4,025,687 A).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 16-18, Bahnmiller teaches a composite building insulation panel (12) comprising a rigid polyurethane foam core (5) having a planar surface; a facing bonded to the planar surface, the facing comprising an outer skin layer (1) of metalized polypropylene; and a reinforcing layer (2) between the planar surface and the outer skin layer and comprising woven fibers (fig 1, para 17-18, 23, 25, 26).
Bahnmiller fails to suggest at least one layer of mesh embedded within the foam core to reinforce the foam core; wherein materials of the mesh include at least one of fiberglass, including E-Glass and/or S-Glass, Kevlar®, carbon fiber, ceramics, stainless steel, and galvanized steel.
Wooler teaches a laminated panel having improved fire resistance comprising a core of rigid isocyanurate based foam sandwiched between two facing sheets, characterized in that there is embedded within the foam core a binding material; wherein the binding material is metal wires, filaments or meshes; glass (e.g., fiberglass), textile or plastic fibres, strands, filaments, strips or extrusions in single, random, woven or meshed form (abstract, col 1, line 23 – col 2, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the laminated panels of Wooler with the composite building insulation panels of Bahnmiller for composite building insulation panels with improved fire resistance.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Wooler teaches wherein the mesh is embedded within the foam core below the planar surface of the foam core at a depth that is closer to the planar surface than to a center of a thickness of the foam core; and wherein the foam core has opposed planar surfaces and wherein the at least one layer of mesh embedded within the foam core comprises a first layer of reinforcing mesh embedded in the foam core near one of the opposed planar surfaces and a second layer of reinforcing mesh embedded in the foam core near the other of the opposed planar surfaces (col 1, line 56 – col 2, line 13).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bahnmiller teaches wherein the facing (7) extends beyond an edge of the foam core (5); and an adhesive (3) applied to a portion of the facing extending beyond the edge of foam core (fig 1, para 17-20).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Bahnmiller teaches wherein the outer skin layer is at least partially vapor impervious; wherein the outer skin layer is configured to have a class I water vapor transmission rating of 0.0 perm to 0.1 perm (para 19).
Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller and Wooler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGee.
Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler teaches the composite building insulation panel of claims 1 and 10.
Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler fails to suggest wherein the mesh is a carrier mesh coated with an intumescent material; wherein the intumescent material comprises flake graphite; wherein the graphite flake exfoliates at a temperature of 320° F to 536° F (160° C to 280° C); wherein the intumescent material is coated primarily on only one side of the carrier mesh; wherein at least one of the first layer of reinforcing mesh and the second layer of reinforcing mesh is coated with an intumescent material.
McGee teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention to use meshes to anchor intumescent fire-resistant or flame resistant coatings to substrate surfaces including that of foam substrates wherein the mesh is embedded (para 9-14); and further teaches expandable graphite flakes as a known intumescent composition (para 21); wherein the intumescent material is coated primarily on only one side of the carrier mesh (para 31) and improves ASTM E-84 flame spread index (abstract).
Therefore, per Mcgee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat at least one side of the carrier meshes of the composite building insulation panels of Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler with the intumescent fire-resistant coatings comprising expandable graphite of McGee for composite building insulation panels with improved ASTM E-84 flame spread index.
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller, Wooler, and McGee as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Blackburn et al (US 2023/0228085 A1).
Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler and McGee teaches the composite building insulation panel of claim 2.
Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler and McGee fails to suggest wherein the carrier mesh comprises a leno mesh in which two warp yarns are woven around the weft yarns, wherein the mesh is characterized by dimensions d1 which is the warp/weft density, i.e., number of yarns per unit length, and d2 which is the yarn thickness, and wherein a ratio of yarn thickness to density (d2/d1) is 0.12 to 0.34; and wherein the intumescent material is bound to the carrier mesh by a PVAc-based glue.
Blackburn teaches reinforcing fabrics for panels (para 1) having leno weaves (para 78, 103, 108); wherein chemical bonding is increased in fiberglass meshes by using polyvinyl acetate coatings or adhesives (i.e., PVAc-based glue) (para 24-25); and the coatings may contain fire retardants (para 134).
Therefore, per Blackburn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use polyvinyl acetate coatings or adhesives to bind the expandable graphite to the meshes in the composite building insulation panel of Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler and McGee since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, per Blackburn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a leno meshes for the meshes of in the composite building insulation panel of Bahnmiller as modified by Wooler and McGee since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “two warp yarns are woven around the weft yarns, wherein the mesh is characterized by dimensions d1 which is the warp/weft density, i.e., number of yarns per unit length, and d2 which is the yarn thickness, and wherein a ratio of yarn thickness to density (d2/d1) is 0.12 to 0.34;” the Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that adjusting the weave pattern, warp/weft density, and yarn thickness, as well as the relationship of warp/weft density to yarn thickness, would have affected the reinforcing properties of the mesh; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the weave pattern, warp/weft density, and yarn thickness, as well as the relationship of warp/weft density to yarn thickness to optimize the reinforcing properties of the mesh.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the graphite flake exfoliates at a temperature of 320° F to 536° F (160° C to 280° C),” McGee teaches the flake graphite of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess this property. 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller (US 20150140269 A1) in view of McGee.
Regarding claims 20-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 35-38, Bahnmiller teaches a composite building insulation panel (12) comprising a rigid polyurethane-modified polyisocyanurate (PU-PIR) foam core (5) having a planar surface; a facing bonded to the planar surface, the facing comprising an outer skin layer (1) of metalized polypropylene; and a reinforcing layer (2) between the planar surface and the outer skin layer and comprising woven fibers (fig 1, para 17-18, 23, 25, 26).
Bahnmiller fails to suggest a fire barrier layer applied to or embedded within the foam core and disposed beneath the facing so as to be closer to the planar surface than to a center of a thickness of the foam core, wherein the fire barrier layer comprises an intumescent material; wherein the fire barrier layer comprises a carrier sheet on which the intumescent material is coated; wherein the carrier sheet comprise at least one of a mesh, a fabric, a film, a paper product, or linear fibers; wherein the carrier sheet comprises a reinforcing mesh; wherein the intumescent material comprises flake graphite; wherein the intumescent material comprises flake graphite; and wherein the intumescent material is coated primarily on only one side of the carrier mesh.
McGee teaches polyisocyanurate foam (PU-PIR) insulating foams comprising an outer fiberglass mesh (i.e., carrier sheet comprising a reinforcing mesh) coated with intumescent fire-resistant or flame resistant coatings (e.g., expandable graphite flakes) (i.e., a fire barrier layer applied to the foam core); wherein the outer surface may comprise a facer material (para 19-21, 28-30); wherein the intumescent material is coated primarily on only one side of the carrier mesh (para 31) and improves ASTM E-84 flame spread index (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polyisocyanurate foam (PU-PIR) insulating foams comprising an outer fiberglass mesh and intumescent coating of McGee for the foam cores in composite building insulation panels of Bahnmiller for composite building insulation panels with improved ASTM E-84 flame spread index; and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the graphite flake exfoliates at a temperature of 320° F to 536° F (160° C to 280° C),” McGee teaches the flake graphite of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess this property. 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Bahnmiller teaches wherein the facing (7) extends beyond an edge of the foam core (5); and an adhesive (3) applied to a portion of the facing extending beyond the edge of foam core (fig 1, para 17-20).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Bahnmiller teaches wherein the outer skin layer is at least partially vapor impervious; wherein the outer skin layer is configured to have a class I water vapor transmission rating of 0.0 perm to 0.1 perm (para 19).
Regarding claim 39, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the coating weight of the intumescent-material on the carrier sheet to optimize the flame retardant properties of the composite building insulation panels.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller and McGee as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Blackburn et al (US 2023/0228085 A1).
Bahnmiller as modified by McGee teaches the composite building insulation panel of claim 21.
Bahnmiller as modified by McGee fails to suggest wherein the carrier mesh comprises a leno mesh in which two warp yarns are woven around the weft yarns, wherein the mesh is characterized by dimensions d1 which is the warp/weft density, i.e., number of yarns per unit length, and d2 which is the yarn thickness, and wherein a ratio of yarn thickness to density (d2/d1) is 0.12 to 0.34; and wherein the intumescent material is bound to the carrier mesh by a PVAc-based glue.
Blackburn teaches reinforcing fabrics for panels (para 1) having leno weaves (para 78, 103, 108); wherein chemical bonding is increased in fiberglass meshes by using polyvinyl acetate coatings or adhesives (i.e., PVAc-based glue) (para 24-25); and the coatings may contain fire retardants (para 134).
Therefore, per Blackburn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use polyvinyl acetate coatings or adhesives to bind the expandable graphite to the meshes in the composite building insulation panel of Bahnmiller as modified by McGee since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Furthermore, per Blackburn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a leno meshes for the meshes of in the composite building insulation panel of Bahnmiller as modified by McGee since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation “two warp yarns are woven around the weft yarns, wherein the mesh is characterized by dimensions d1 which is the warp/weft density, i.e., number of yarns per unit length, and d2 which is the yarn thickness, and wherein a ratio of yarn thickness to density (d2/d1) is 0.12 to 0.34;” the Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that adjusting the weave pattern, warp/weft density, and yarn thickness, as well as the relationship of warp/weft density to yarn thickness, would have affected the reinforcing properties of the mesh; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the weave pattern, warp/weft density, and yarn thickness, as well as the relationship of warp/weft density to yarn thickness to optimize the reinforcing properties of the mesh.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnmiller and McGee as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Wooler.
Bahnmiller as modified by McGee teaches the composite building insulation panel of claim 20.
Bahnmiller as modified by McGee fails to suggest wherein the fire barrier layer is embedded within the foam core at a depth of about 1/32 inch to 1/16 inch below the planar surface of the foam core.
Wooler teaches a laminated panel having improved fire resistance comprising a core of rigid isocyanurate based foam sandwiched between two facing sheets, characterized in that there is embedded within the foam core a binding material; wherein the binding material is metal wires, filaments or meshes; glass (e.g., fiberglass), textile or plastic fibres, strands, filaments, strips or extrusions in single, random, woven or meshed form (abstract, col 1, line 23 – col 2, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the laminated panels of Wooler with the composite building insulation panels of Bahnmiller for composite building insulation panels with improved fire resistance. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to embed the fire barrier layer is embedded within the foam core as a matter of design choice as suggested by the prior art at the time of invention.
Regarding the limitation “at a depth of about 1/32 inch to 1/16 inch below the planar surface of the foam core;” Wooler teaches the binding material (e.g., glass mesh) may be embedded anywhere within the foam core but preferably not deeper than approximately one inch (2.5 cm) from one or both outer surfaces of the foam core (col 1 line 58-61). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Wooler, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights