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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/26/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-20, 62 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by a “woven tape”. Does this mean a tape, (an elongated material) made by weaving or does this mean a woven fabric wherein the warp and weft are formed from tape or ribbon (flat) fibers? It appears from claim 61, that a woven structure made up of ribbon or tape fibers is what is intended and art will be applied using this interpretation. However, as currently written, the claimed structure is not clear.
In claims 1 and 16, it is not clear what is meant by a non-porous mesh layer. A mesh layer by definition is an open assembly of fibers. It is not clear how this structure can be non-porous, which is interpreted as being impermeable to air, water and other fluids and is without pores or opening. For purposes of the art rejection, any non-porous fibrous structure will be considered to be a non-porous mesh.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas, U.S. Patent No.7,341,638 in view of Fourezon, U.S. Patent No. 4,680,213.
Haas discloses a structure comprising a foam having reinforcing fibers dispersed therein and a scrim or other fiber reinforcement which is impregnated with and bonded to a surface of the fiber reinforced foam. Since the foam can be a thermoplastic foam, made from polymers such as polyolefins, which impregnates the scrim, the fibers making up the scrim are necessarily held in place by the thermoplastic material of the foam. See col. 6, lines 6-25. A foam would necessarily comprise a lofting agent. The reinforcing fibers in the foam can comprise glass, polymeric, synthetic, metal or organic fibers such as cotton or wool. See col. 2, lines 49-55. The structure may have facing sheets on its outer surface including materials selected from foil, papers, paperboard, plastic foils, felts, fibers glass and penetrable and impenetrable fiber mats such as scrims, netting, porous paper or porous sheet materials and combinations thereof which correspond to the claimed skin and decorative layers. See col. 4, lines 29-57.
Haas differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the percentage of reinforcing fibers in the central layer.
However, Haas teaches incorporating fibers into the porous foam layer to provide enhanced physical and performance properties such as increased thermal dimensional stability, strength and fire resistance. See col. 1, lines 27-33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the amount of fibers which provided the properties desired in the structure.
Haas teaches that the facing sheets can comprise scrims. A scrim is another word for a mesh as claimed. With regard to the limitation that the mesh, (which is the same as a scrim), is non-porous, scrims are defined as open construction fabrics and are generally woven, nonwoven or knit. Haas teaches that the facing layers can be permeable or impermeable, (porous or non-porous). See col. 4, lines 29-57. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used an a penetrable or non-penetrable, (porous or non-porous), scrim or fibrous material as the reinforcing layer.
However, Haas does not disclose that the scrim is woven from tapes.
However, Fourezon teaches that scrims for reinforcing laminated structures can be formed from a woven array of tapes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a scrim woven from tapes as the facing layer or layers of Haas in view of the teaching of Fourezon that such structures form stable and undeformable holes and to have selected the number of ends per inch which provided the desired strength, stability and opening size to the scrim. See col. 2, lines 3-14; col. 4, lines 37-44 and figure 5.
Haas teaches that the foamable mixture can be a polyolefin foam, (polyethylene or polypropylene). See col. 6, lines 6-14. Since the facing layers are impregnated with and bonded to the foam, the fibers of the mesh will necessarily be held in place by the thermoplastic material.
Haas differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose providing additional fiber reinforced foam or porous layers on the other side of the scrim layer.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided additional fiber reinforced foam layers and/or additional mesh or tape layer, in the structure of Haas in order to produce a final structure having the desired strength, thickness, and thermal and acoustical insulation properties.
Once an additional fiber reinforced layer was applied to the faces of the structure which include the scrim, the scrim would necessarily function to couple the two layers together, because the scrim would be between the two layers.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas, U.S. Patent No.7,341,638 in view of Fourezon, U.S. Patent No. 4,680,213 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cohrs et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,108,806.
Haas differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the foam includes a lofting agent comprising expandable microspheres.
However, Cohrs discloses employing expandable microspheres as a lofting agent in thermoplastic foams. Cohrs teaches that expandable microspheres allow foaming at a lower temperature, allow for foaming of difficult to foam polyolefins, produce foamable materials with a longer shelf life, can be incorporated into resin in an unexpanded state and expanded later, and produce foams having uniform cell sizes. See col. 2, lines 18-68.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated expandable microspheres into the resin of Haas in order to produce a product having the advantages of uniform cell size, longer shelf life, and processing and foaming at lower temperatures.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the 112 rejection. However, it is still not clear what the structure of a woven tape is, because it is not clear if it is a woven fabric made of tape which are flat strands like ribbons, or if the woven fabric has a tape shape, such as a longer, narrow shape. The claimed structure is not clear.
With regard to the rejection of Haas in view of Fourezon, Applicant argues that Haas does not teach a non-porous mesh. However, as set forth above, it is not clear what a non-porous mesh is, because a mesh is by definition a fibrous assembly having an open structure, and therefore a mesh is by definition porous. Additionally, Haas teaches that the outside facing layers, which can be scrims, can be permeable or impermeable, which is equated with a non-porous layer. Additionally, since the scrims or meshes are used as outer facing layers, once an additional porous fibrous reinforced layer was applied, the scrim or mesh would be between the two layers and thus would couple the two layers together.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789