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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 2/11/26. Claims 1, 8 have been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-33 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-30, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Balbo Block USPA_20150232631_A1 in view of Falke USPN_6087410.
1. Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Balbo Block discloses a PU foam in the form of a mold (corresponds to claimed composite) (paragraph 0080) comprising reinforced glass fiber in a continuous phase (corresponds to claimed reinforced glass fiber in 100 wt% continuous phase form and 0% discontinuous phase form as claimed in instant Claims 1 and 3) (paragraph 0005). Balbo Block discloses a polyol component and an isocyanate component (Claim 7) wherein said polyol component is reactive to said isocyanate component (Abstract) and further comprises flame retardants (paragraph 0057), blowing agents, and catalysts (paragraph 0079).
2. However, Balbo Block discloses using only 5 to 15 wt% of said reinforced glass fibers while said PU foam is the balance from 85 to 95 wt% (Claim 12). This does not overlap with the claimed range.
3. Falke discloses production of polyurethane foams (Title) which “advantageously” have a range of 1 to 50 wt% of said reinforcing glass fibers (column 9, lines 40-47). Falke further discloses that its invention results in PU foams having improved hardness and increased humid resistance without impairing other properties (column 2, lines 15-18).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the concentration of reinforcing glass fibers, of Balbo Block, by using the aforementioned range, of Falke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying this concentration for its advantages such as increased humid resistance and improved hardness. It would further be obvious to substitute one known element for another. Finally, given that the Balbo Block in view of Falke teach all of the claimed limitations, it would be expected for it to inherently fulfill the claimed feature of its PU composite passing the UL94 V0 grade for fire test.
5. Regarding Claim 2, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests impregnating its glass fiber with its PU foam (Balbo Block: paragraphs 0010, 0071, 0075, 0087).
6. Regarding Claim 4, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests forming several glass fiber mat layers (Balbo Block Abstract).
7. Regarding Claim 6, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests a density upper limit of 0.2 g/cm3 (Balbo Block: paragraph 0052).
8. Regarding Claims 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 28-30, although the claimed thickness is not explicitly disclosed the Examiner respectfully submits that Balbo Block discloses using its invention in insulating materials of gas tanks (corresponds to claimed covering material of instant Claim 13) (paragraph 0003) which are known to fall into the claimed range. The said gas tank would also fulfill the limitations of instant Claim 14 of having a metal sheet that are known to be made of steel (corresponds to claimed limitation of instant Claim 16) of the thickness being claimed in instant Claims 17 and 18. Such setups are known to have the claimed substrate layers of instant Claims 28-30.
9. Regarding Claim 8, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests using TCPP (Balbo Block: paragraph 0058).
10. Regarding Claims 21 and 27, Balbo Block in view of Falke doesn’t suggest the claimed limitation. However, it would be expected to inherently fulfill this limitation due to teaching the limitations of the independent claim.
10. Regarding Claims 10, 12, and 32, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests the process limitations (Claim 15). The limitations of instant Claims 12 and 32 have been disclosed above under the rejections of instant Claim 1.
11. Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests the PU foam as explained above, this can also serve as the claimed thermal insulating layer when combined as in the case of combining multiple layers (Balbo Block: Abstract).
12. Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests using expandable graphite (corresponds to claimed intumescent material) (Balbo Block: paragraph 0059). The size of which can be modified based on end-user specifications as is routinely done.
13. Regarding Claim 24, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests using PU resins (corresponds to claimed binder) (Balbo Block: paragraph 0072).
14. Regarding Claim 25, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests product-by-process limitations. Applicants have not indicated how these process limitations impart surprising and unexpected properties.
15. Regarding Claim 26, Balbo Block in view of Falke suggests using a functionality of 2 to 4 (Falke: column 5, lines 40-46).
16. Regarding Claim 33, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Balbo Block USPA_20150232631_A1 in view of Falke USPN_6087410, as applied to Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-30, 32, and 33, and further in view of Wang CN_201872348_U (see machine English translation).
17. Regarding Claims 5, 11, and 31, Balbo Block in view of Falke does not suggest the claimed discontinuous reinforced fiber phase.
18. Wang discloses a PU foam (title) wherein reinforced fiber is used (Abstract). Wang further discloses that adding a small amount of chopped glass fiber (corresponds to claimed discontinuous phase reinforced fiber) to reinforce rigid polyurethane foam
can usually increase its strength and modulus by 3 to 5 times (paragraph 0004).
19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the reinforced glass fiber, of Balbo Block in view of Falke, by using the chopped glass fiber, of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain increased strength and modulus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: “Balbo Block does not disclose or suggest any "continuous phase" (or any phase for that matter), neither in connection with glass fiber nor otherwise.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that the fiber mats are continuous (paragraph 0005) and there is nothing within the reference that hints at there being any discontinuous phase. Moreover, Applicants state in their pre-publication:
“As used herein, the term “reinforced fiber in a continuous phase form” refers to such a fiber layer that the fibers comprised in the layer are combined or connected with each other to form an integrated layer. (0078).
The description found in Balbo Block meets this definition.
Applicants state: “Balbo Block also does not disclose or suggest reinforced glass fibers as recited by claim 1. While Balbo Block discloses reinforcing material, such as glass fibers, this disclosure means that the fiber reinforces polyurethane in which it is embedded, but not that the fiber itself is reinforced.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicants state in their pre-publication:
“the reinforced fiber is selected from the group consisting of glass fiber, basalt fiber, carbon fiber and natural fiber, preferably glass fiber and basalt fiber, and more preferably glass fiber.” (0156).
Given that Balbo Block teaches using glass fiber, it would be expected for it to meet the limitation of being a reinforced fiber.
Finally, given that the Balbo Block in view of Falke teach all of the claimed limitations, it would be expected for it to inherently fulfill the claimed feature of its PU composite passing the UL94 V0 grade for fire test.
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 7, 2026