DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 18-31 in the reply filed on 9/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 32-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected methods, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/22/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/4/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The copy of the Japanese Office Action NPL has not been provided.
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 18-31 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 18 recites the limitation “in particular” as it relates to the material property. The limitation “in particular” signifies a narrow limitation of the broad limitation “material property” and as such, it is not clear if the narrower limitations of the specific types of material properties are required to be met or merely exemplary. Clarification is requested.
Claims 19-20, 27-28, 30, and 31 recite broad and narrow limitations in light of the claims stating “preferably” and “particularly preferably”. The limitations are indefinite because it is not clear if the narrower limitation is required or merely exemplary. Examiner assumes either scenario as meeting the limitations. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 18-19, 24-27, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris (US 20060292404).
Harris discloses a fire resistant transparent panel. Concerning claim 18 and 19, Harris discloses the fire resistant transparent panel comprises a matrix in which a mixture of fibers and particles are dispersed, wherein the particles serve as the additive and the mixture of fibers and particles are dispersed in dense regions at the outer surfaces (para. 0017-0023). Examiner notes that since the dispersion is denser at the outer surface, this necessarily would mean the inner surfaces would have less, resulting in a concentration gradient and meet the limitations as claimed. Regarding claims 24 and 25, the particles are made of a flame retardant that is at least one of the claimed materials (para. 0021). With respect to claim 26, particles are considered to be powders and therefore meet the limitations. Alternatively, it is noted that the term “preferably” is indefinite and as such, the particles being dispersed in the matrix would meet the limitations as claimed. Regarding claim 27, the matrix is a polymeric material (para. 0020). Concerning claim 30, the panel is a single sheet and as such designed in one piece (para. 0028). In regard to claim 31, the panel is used in automotive and aircraft applications and would meet the limitations as claimed (para. 0004).
Claims 18-20, 23-24, 26-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Filippatos et al. (US 20200207038) with evidence from Attia et al. (Materials Science & Engineering B).
Filippatos discloses a multi-material composite. Concerning claim 18, Filippatos discloses the composite comprises fiber-reinforced polymer layers comprising graphene in a concentration gradient (para. 0015-0055). Given that the structure is the same as that claimed, the material property would by pronounced in varying degrees within the region and as such, the structure of Filippatos would exhibit the claimed behavior. Regarding claims 19-20 and 23, the gradient changes continuously from one direction to the other in a thickness direction (i.e. orthogonal to the surface) (para. 0018-022 and 0047-0054). With respect to claims 24 and 26, as evidenced by Attia, graphene is in a flake form and has flame retarding properties and as such meets the limitations as claimed (pp. 3-8). In regard to claim 27, the polymer matrix is one of thermosetting or thermoplastic materials (para. 0040-0041). Concerning claim 28, the fibers are carbon fibers in the form of nonwoven, woven, and the like (para. 0026-0027). Regarding claim 30, as shown in Figure 2, the gradient layer is at least 50% by volume of the composite and therefore would meet the limitations as claimed. With respect to claim 31, the composite component is used as part of an automobile (abstract).
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 20-23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 20060292404).
Harris discloses the above, including tailoring the dispensing the particles in specific areas, regions, and patterns for the fire retarding behavior of the panel (para. 0021-0023 and 0030-0031). As such, for the desired fire retarding behavior, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the claimed gradient profiles, patterns, concentration gradient, and enclosing regions as claimed in claims 20-23 and 29.
Claims 21, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippatos et al. (US 20200207038) with evidence from Attia et al. (Materials Science & Engineering B).
Filippatos discloses the above, including the gradient layer allowing for reducing crack formation and propagation (para. 0021). Given that the structure to produce the above would depend upon the specific structure that the gradient layer is used with, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed gradient profiles and patterned regions, in order to provide the desired reduction in crack formation and propagation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Greenhill et al. (US 9060560).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
