Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been overcome in view of the amendment filed on 02/19/2026.
The rejection over Kristy in view of Sollradt has been modified in view of the amendment filed on 02/19/2026. Neither Kristy nor Sollradt discloses or suggests a silicone foam comprising multiple foam cells and at least one void wherein each foam cell and each void have less than 0.5 vol%, and 5 vol% or more, respectively, based on the total volume of the silicone foam layer.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Rizvi et al. (US 2015/0057382).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0088483 to Kristy et al. (hereinafter “Kristy”) in view of US 5,922,799 to Sollradl et al. (hereinafter “Sollradl”) and US 2015/0057382 to Rizvi et al. (hereinafter “Rizvi”).
Kristy discloses an article comprising a multilayer laminate comprising a first flame-retardant layer 24a, a first foam layer 22a, a nonporous elastomeric barrier layer 10, a second foam layer 22b, and a second flame-retardant layer 24b (figure 1B; and paragraph 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kristy discloses that each of the first and second flame-retardant layers comprises a polymeric binder, an intumescent material, a char forming agent and an inorganic flame retardant (paragraph 72). The polymeric binder is present in an amount of 20 to 80 vol% based on the total volume of the flame-retardant layer (paragraph 72). In particular, the flame-retardant layer comprises 34 wt% of a silicone elastomer binder, and 66 wt% of an aluminum hydroxide incorporated therein (example 1, and paragraph 84). The content of the aluminum hydroxide flame retardant is within the claimed range. Kristy also teaches that the first and second flame-retardant layers are not made of the same composition (paragraph 25).
Kristy asserts that the foam layer comprises voids with a void content of 5-99 vol% (paragraph 38). The foam layer comprises voids and each of which containing particulate flame-retardant agent such as aluminum trihydrate, magnesium hydroxide (paragraphs 61 and 74). The aluminum trihydrate or the magnesium hydroxide reads on the claimed endothermic agent. Further, the foam layer is a silicone foam matrix with inorganic flame-retardant agent dispersed therein at a concentration in a range of 10 to 90 vol% (paragraph 75). Kristy also discloses that when only an organic flame- retardant agent is present, the organic flame-retardant agent can be present in an amount of 1 to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the composition used to form the foam layer (paragraph 75). This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the content of the flame-retardant agent in the foam layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the content of the flame-retardant agent in the foam layer is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the content of the flame-retardant agent in the foam layer in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to impart flame-retardant properties. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Option 1: The examiner equates each of the first and second foam layers reads on the claimed central layer. The central layer adheres to the first surface layer and the second surface layer as stated in the claim. This “adherence” allows the inclusion of intervening layers between the central layer, the first surface layer, and the second surface layer.
Kristy discloses that the first foam layer adheres to the second flame-retarding layer via intervening layers comprising the second foam layer and the elastomeric barrier. This meets the claimed requirements.
Option 2: The examiner equates the laminate of the first foam layer, the elastomeric barrier layer and the foam layer to the claimed central layer.
The term “is” followed by the central layer as recited in the claim, is not sufficient to differentiate the central layer from the laminate of Kristy because the first foam layer or the second foam layer of the laminate is also a silicone foam layer containing voids which are filled by endothermic agent. Even if the term “is” is replaced with “consists of”, the replacement is still ineffective to exclude the Kristy reference as prior art for the same reasons discussed above.
Kristy does not explicitly disclose (i) the silicone binder in the first and second flame retardant layers comprising a crosslinked polysiloxane binder; and (ii) each foam layer comprising foam cells and voids wherein each foam cell comprises less than 0.5 vol% based on the total volume of the foam layer while each void comprises 5 vol% or more based on the total volume of the foam layer.
Sollradt, however, discloses an organopolysiloxane composition which can be crosslinked to a flame-resistant elastomer (abstract). The organopolysiloxane composition comprises 10-80% by weight of organopolysiloxane, 0.5-15% by weight of crosslinking agent, 0-50% by weight of reinforcing filler, 10-50% by weight of non-reinforcing filler, and 0.1-20 by weight of boron compound (column 6, column 60-67; and column 7, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an organopolysiloxane/crosslinking agent disclosed in Sollradt for the silicone binder of the flame-retardant layer disclosed in Kristy, motivated by the desire to enhance the flame- retardant property because the organopolysiloxane can be crosslinked to a great flame resistant elastomer.
Rizvi, however, discloses that a resin foam layer has a pore size of less 50 microns and is any one of an open cell structure, a closed cell structure, and a monolith structure (abstract). The resin foam layer is excellent in thermal insulation properties (paragraph 244). The resin foam is useful in applications including batteries, solar cells, and cell chips (paragraph 244). The resin foam is an open cell structure having large pores and small pores formed on the wall surface of the large pores (paragraph 294 and 295; and figure 12). The large pore has an average pore size of less than 40 microns (paragraph 232) while the small pore has average pore size of less than 5 microns (figure 12). The open cell content is 98% (paragraph 295).
It appears that the small pore has an average pore size within the range set forth in the Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that each small pore would inherently have less than 0.5 vol % relative to the total volume of the foam layer.
The large pore diameter is at least 8 times greater than the small pore diameter. Given that the large and small pores have a spherical shape with a volume of 4/3 πr3, the volume of the large pore will be at least 10 times greater than the volume of the small pore.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the foam layer disclosed in Kristy having an open cell structure comprising large pores and small pores on the wall surface of the large pores disclosed in Rizvi, motivated by the desire to maintain excellent thermal insulation properties for a long period of time.
The combined teachings of Kristy and Rizvi result in a multilayer laminate wherein each foam layer has an open cell structure comprising large pores, and small pores on the wall surface of the large pores, and wherein both the large pores and small pores contain a flame-retardant agent, meeting the claimed requirements.
As to claim 2, Kristy as modified by Sollradt does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second flame-retardant layers having a 10% strain modulus of at least 100 Pa as determined by ASTM D412.
The flame-retardant layer of Kristy as modified by Sollradt is made of the same composition as the claimed flame-retardant layer. The resulting flame-retardant layer comprises a polymeric binder, an intumescent material, a char forming agent and an inorganic flame retardant. In particular, the flame-retardant layer comprises 34 wt% of a silicone elastomer binder, and 66 wt% of an aluminum hydroxide incorporated therein wherein the silicone elastomer binder is a crosslinked organopolysiloxane. The resulting flame-retardant layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 mm within the claimed range.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the 10% strain modulus of at least 100 Pa as determined by ASTM D412 would inherently be present for the modified flame retardant layer as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 3, Kristy discloses that each of the first and second flame-retardant layers has a thickness of 0.1 to 2 mm (paragraph 57).
As to claim 4, Kristy discloses that each foam layer has a thickness of 1 to 3 mm (paragraph 37).
As to claim 5, Kristy discloses that the flame-retardant layer comprises 34 wt% of a silicone elastomer binder, and 66 wt% of an aluminum hydroxide incorporated therein (example 1, and paragraph 84).
As to claims 6 and 7, Kristy discloses that the inorganic flame-retardant agent is present in an amount of 20-80 vol% based on the total volume of the foam layer (paragraph 75). The inorganic flame-retardant agent comprises aluminum trihydrate, magnesium hydroxide and each of which corresponding to the claimed endothermic agent (paragraphs 61 and 74).
As to claims 8 and 9, Kristy discloses that the article further comprises an adhesive between the foam layer and each of the first and second flame-retardant layers (paragraph 25). The adhesive is a silicone adhesive (paragraph 76).
As to claim 10, Kristy discloses that the article further comprises battery cells 300, 400 that are electrically connected with one another with the multilayer laminate 100 residing between battery cells (figure 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the rejection over Kristy in view of Sollradt is improper because the combination of the cited references fails to teach the claimed orientation of layers.
Option 1: The examiner equates each of the first and second foam layers reads on the claimed central layer. The central layer adheres to the first surface layer and the second surface layer as stated in the claim. This “adherence” allows the inclusion of intervening layers between the central layer, the first surface layer, and the second surface layer.
Kristy discloses that the first foam layer adheres to the second flame-retarding layer via intervening layers comprising the second foam layer and the elastomeric barrier. This meets the claimed requirements. Additionally, the examiner never equates the non-porous elastomer layer to the claimed second surface layer as stated by the Applicant.
Option 2: The examiner equates the laminate made of the first foam layer, the non-porous elastomeric layer, and the foam layer to the claimed central layer.
Applicant asserts that the laminate cannot read on the claimed central layer because the term “is” followed by the central layer indicates that the central layer does not contain any components other than cells and voids where the voids are filled with endothermic agent.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The term “is” is not sufficient to differentiate the central layer from the laminate of Kristy because the first foam layer or the second foam layer of the laminate is also a silicone foam layer containing voids which are filled by endothermic agent. Even if the term “is” is replaced with “consists of”, the replacement is still ineffective to exclude the Kristy reference as prior art for the same reasons discussed above.
However, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that neither Kristy nor Sollradt discloses or suggests a silicone foam comprising multiple foam cells and at least one void wherein each foam cell and each void have less than 0.5 vol%, and 5 vol% or more, respectively, based on the total volume of the silicone foam sheet. However, new combination of Kristy, Sollradt, and Rizvi suggests the claimed invention (see rejection above).
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788