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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 6/3/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. The instant claims have been amended to now require the presence of perlite in an amount of about 8–15 weight percent of a basemat. Claims 3–5 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 6–18 remain pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, and 6–18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2019/0077700 A1).
Xu teaches the creation of a base mat for roofing, wherein the base mat comprises 60–90 with percent mineral wool, up to 10 weight percent perlite, up to 10 weight percent paper fiber, and 4–10 weigh percent binder. Xu abstract, ¶¶ 169–171, 173. The base mat has a backing side and a facing side. Id. ¶ 29, Fig. 2.
Claims 6–8 are rejected as the binder may comprise starch and latex. Id. ¶ 149. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as the base mat has a density of about 10 pcf to about 17 pcf. Id. ¶ 24.
Xu fails to teach a relative ratio of starch and latex when they are used together as a binder in the base mat. The prior art does, however, teach that starch binders may be preferred. Id. ¶ 149. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a starch to latex binder ratio in the range of about 7:1 to about 12:1 motivated by the desire to use much more of the preferred binder relative to the amount of latex. Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCartney (US 2018/0112402 A1).
Xu fails to teach or suggest the addition of a porous veil to the facing side of a base mat.
McCartney teaches a fibrous panel including a base mat, wherein a first surface of a porous veil is laminated on at least the facing side of the base mat. McCartney abstract, ¶¶ 15, 19. The veil comprises a nonwoven fiberglass or fiberglass blended material. Id. ¶ 13. A second surface of the veil may be printed decoratively. See id. ¶¶ 14, 29–30. The backing side of the base mat may comprise a back coating. See id. ¶ 19. The veiled base mat of McCartney has a noise reduction coefficient of about 1.0 and a ceiling attenuation class of about 36. Id. ¶ 27.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious have added the veil of McCartney to the base mat of Xu to provide improved noise reduction and ceiling attenuation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights