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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/26 has been entered.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dye et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0321001 in view of Veiga et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0022420 and Weiter, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0291827.
Dye discloses a structure comprising a knit fabric which is coated with an adhesive which has polyurethane layers applied to both sides. The fabric can be polyester. The fabric can have a yarn size of 5-2000 deniers and a weight of 6-30 osy. See paragraphs 0019-0022,0024, 0030, 0034, 0035. The structure is useful in forming roofing membranes. See paragraph 0001.
Dye differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the composition of the adhesive coating layer.
However, Veiga discloses a coated textile substrate comprising a central fabric layer, having two outer polyurethane coating layers on each side. Veiga discloses that the textile can be coated with an adhesive polyurethane to promote bonding. See claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a polyurethane adhesive as the coating on the knit fabric in Dye in view of the teaching of Veiga that such adhesives were useful in bonding polyurethane layers to a knit fabric layer. It further would have been obvious to have employed an amount of the polyurethane adhesive which was sufficient to provide enhanced bonding without using excess materials to avoid excess costs and weight.
Dye differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the particularly claimed basis weight range of the scrim layer although the value of 6osy overlaps, or the particular types of knits.
However, Weiter teaches fabrics suitable for use as roofing membranes, (see paragraph 0100), having basis weights of grams per square meter which equates to 20-500 gsm, which encompasses the claimed values of 2-6 oz per square yard, (which is about 67-203 gsm). Weiter also teaches employing knit fabrics such as warp knitted fabrics. See paragraph 0034.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the fabric layer of Dye so that it had a structure and weight as taught by Weiter in view of the recognized suitability of such basis weights for forming roofing membranes.
With regard to the particularly claimed knits, since circular knits, tricot knits and knits comprising warps, inlaid weft yarns and stitching yarns are conventionally known types of knit textiles, it would have been obvious to have selected from among known knits depending on the properties desired in the final product.
With regard to the modulus and the elongation of the polymer layers, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular modulus and elongation of the polymers depending on the intended use of the product.
With regard to the claims as amended 5/26/26, since the instant specification teaches that knit and woven fabrics fulfill the requirement of at least about 60% by number of the fibers are within 45 degrees of the plane formed by the membrane, (see paragraph 0017 of the specification), once knit fabrics are provided the fabrics would meet the limitation of at least about 60% by number of the fibers are within 45 degrees of the plane formed by the membrane.
With regard to new claim 21, Weiter discloses that the fabrics can preferably comprise fire retardant polyester, (see paragraph 0045), which would meet both the limitations of 50% polyester and 50% flame retardant fibers.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
With regard to the claims as amended to recite at least about 60% by number of the fibers are within 45 degrees of the plane formed by the membrane, since the instant specification teaches that knit and woven fabrics fulfill the requirement of at least about 60% by number of the fibers are within 45 degrees of the plane formed by the membrane, (see paragraph 0017 of the specification), once knit fabrics are provided the fabrics would meet the limitation of at least about 60% by number of the fibers are within 45 degrees of the plane formed by the membrane.
With regard to the proportions of polyester and other fibers in claim 21, Weiter discloses that the fabrics can preferably comprise fire retardant polyester, (see paragraph 0045), which would meet both the limitations of 50% polyester and 50% flame retardant fibers.
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
Prosecution Insights