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
Note Applicant’s election of Group I and Species III in the reply filed on March 30, 2026.
In view of the present amendment, previously examined claim 25 now includes only the nonelected species. Accordingly, claim 25 is now withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24, 28-29, 32 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as
being anticipated by Davis (USPub20150017856).
Regarding claims 24 and 32: Davis teaches fire-resistant coated article comprising a substrate sheet which can be glass (glazing material) and an intumescent layer (abstract, Figures, 0018-0021, 0024).
The intumescent layer comprises a blowing agent (phase separation additive) comprising a compound that produces a gas such as N2 or NO2 (x=1, y=2) in response to being heated (0019, 0077).
Additionally note that the compound can be sodium azide (0092) meeting the same phase separation additive disclosed by Applicants (see for instance Applicants’ claim 32) and as such, would be expected to decompose similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 28: Note that due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Davis’ blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not glycerol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 29: Similarly, due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Davis’ blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not ethanol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 36: Given that Davis’ layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by Davis
(USPub20150017856) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Davis (USPub20150017856) in view of (USPub20070218262).
Regarding claim 35: Regarding the claimed transmission, given that Davis’ layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, given that Davis’ glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, note that Davis’ generally teaches a fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate.
As ‘262, who similarly teaches fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate, teaches it being desirable for fire-resistance glazings to have visible transmissions of greater than 70% (0022, 0033, 0043), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Davis to include a transmission of 70% or greater to obtain a desirable fire-resistant glazing.
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, initially note that when ‘262 mentioned transmission, as no heat appeared to have been applied when discussing the transmission, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the transmission of 70% as now within Davis to be at room temperature which is considered to meet the temperature condition limitation. Further, given that Davis’ glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
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.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis
(USPub20150017856).
Regarding claim 33: Davis’ blowing agent (phase separation additive) is present in an intumescent precursor (see 0070, 0167) that can form up 0-90, 1-80 or even 1-70wt% of the coating (0158-0159) allowing for contents of blowing agent overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, given that Davis’ blowing agent is used to release gas in response to heat thereby, contributing to the formation of the incombustible foaming in the layer (see 0019), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to optimize the content depending on how much released gas and foaming formation is desired.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis
(USPub20150017856) as applied to claim 24 in view of any one of (USPub20030186063), (USPN5565273), (USPub20070218262), (USPN5035951), (USPN5723515), or (USPN4190698).
Regarding claim 34: As discussed above, Davis teaches the invention of claim 24.
While Davis does not explicitly teach the presence of alkali-silicate, Davis does not exclude such an addition and instead, only generally teaches a fire-resistant intumescent layer comprising materials providing fire-resistance to a substrate.
Given that it is well known in the art of fire-resistant intumescent layers for substrates to include alkali silicate, such as sodium silicate, as an intumescent material (see entire disclosure of ‘063, ‘273, ‘262, ‘951, ‘515, ‘698), flame spreading reduction agent (see claim 9 in ‘515) and even as a binder therein (see Col. 1, lines 52-54 in ‘951), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Davis to include an alkali silicate to act as a further intumescent material for enhanced fire resistance, flame spreading reduction agent or even a binder therein.
Claim(s) 24, 28-29, 33-34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Varma (USPub20030186063) in view of Davis (USPub20150017856).
Regarding claim 24 and 32: Varma teaches fire-resistant glazings comprising a sheet of glazing material and an intumescent layer (see abstract).
While Varma may not explicitly mention the presence of a phase separation additive, note that Varma does not exclude such an addition and instead, only generally teaches a fire-resistant intumescent layer for a glass substrate.
As ‘856, who similarly teaches a fire-resistant intumescent layer for substrates such as glass, disclose the desire to add a blowing agent (phase separation additive) comprising a compound that produces a gas such as N2 or NO2 (x=1, y=2) in response to being heated and thereby contributing to the formation of an incombustible foam (0019, 0077), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Varma to include a blowing agent (phase separation additive) according to ‘856 comprising a compound that produces a gas such as N2 or NO2 (x=1, y=2) in response to being heated and thereby contributing to the formation of an incombustible foam for enhanced fire resistance.
Additionally note that Varma including a blowing agent according to ‘856 includes that the compound can be sodium azide (0092) meeting the same phase separation additive disclosed by Applicants (see for instance Applicants’ claim 32) and as such, would be expected to decompose similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 28: Note that due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Varma’s blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not glycerol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 29: Similarly, due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Varma’s blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not ethanol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 33: Note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, given that the blowing agent is used to release gas in response to heat thereby, contributing to the formation of the incombustible foaming in the layer (see 0019), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to optimize the content depending on how much released gas and foaming formation is desired.
Regarding claim 34: The layer comprises alkali silicate waterglass (abstract, 0009, 0012).
Regarding claim 36: Given that Varma’s layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varma
(USPub20030186063) and Davis (USPub20150017856) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Varma and Davis in view of (USPub20070218262).
Regarding claim 35: Regarding the claimed transmission, given that Varma as modified layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, given that Varma’s glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, note that Varma generally teaches a fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate.
As ‘262, who similarly teaches fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate, teaches it being desirable for fire-resistance glazings to have visible transmissions of greater than 70% (0022, 0033, 0043), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Varma to include a transmission of 70% or greater to obtain a desirable fire-resistant glazing.
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, initially note that when ‘262 mentioned transmission, as no heat appeared to have been applied when discussing the transmission, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the transmission of 70% as now within Varma to be at room temperature which is considered to meet the temperature condition limitation. Further, given that Varma’s glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 24, 28-29, 33-34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Egli (USPN5,565,273) in view of Davis (USPub20150017856).
Regarding claim 24 and 32: Egli teaches fire-resistant glazings comprising a sheet of glazing material and an intumescent layer (see abstract, Col. 2, line 32).
While Egli may not explicitly mention the presence of a phase separation additive, note that Egli does not exclude such an addition and instead, only generally teaches a fire-resistant intumescent layer for a glass substrate.
As ‘856, who similarly teaches a fire-resistant intumescent layer for substrates such as glass, disclose the desire to add a blowing agent (phase separation additive) comprising a compound that produces a gas such as N2 or NO2 (x=1, y=2) in response to being heated and thereby contributing to the formation of an incombustible foam (0019, 0077), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Egli to include a blowing agent (phase separation additive) according to ‘856 comprising a compound that produces a gas such as N2 or NO2 (x=1, y=2) in response to being heated and thereby contributing to the formation of an incombustible foam for enhanced fire resistance.
Additionally note that Egli including a blowing agent according to ‘856 includes that the compound can be sodium azide (0092) meeting the same phase separation additive disclosed by Applicants (see for instance Applicants’ claim 32) and as such, would be expected to decompose similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 28: Note that due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Egli’s blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not glycerol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 29: Similarly, due to the “and/or” language throughout the claim, if the additive of prior art does not comprise just one of the materials listed, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, as discussed above, Egli’s blowing agent (phase separation additive) can be that of sodium azide which is not ethanol thereby meeting the claim.
Regarding claim 33: Note that differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, given that the blowing agent is used to release gas in response to heat thereby, contributing to the formation of the incombustible foaming in the layer (see 0019), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to optimize the content depending on how much released gas and foaming formation is desired.
Regarding claim 34: The layer comprises alkali silicate (abstract).
Regarding claim 36: Given that Egli’s layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egli and
Davis (USPub20150017856) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Egli and Davis in view of (USPub20070218262).
Regarding claim 35: Regarding the claimed transmission, given that Egli as modified layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties at the same temperature conditions (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, given that Varma’s glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, note that Egli generally teaches a fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate having transparency (abstract).
As ‘262, who similarly teaches fire-resistant glazing including intumescent layer for a glass substrate having transparency, teaches it being desirable for fire-resistance glazings to have visible transmissions of greater than 70% (0022, 0033, 0043), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Egli to include a transmission of 70% or greater to obtain a desirable fire-resistant glazing.
Regarding the limitation of such transparency being at temperatures less than or equal to 25oC, initially note that when ‘262 mentioned transmission, as no heat appeared to have been applied when discussing the transmission, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the transmission of 70% as now within Egli to be at room temperature which is considered to meet the temperature condition limitation. Further, given that Egli’s glazing and layer appear to meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same transparency at the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
