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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 12/15/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9-11 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yancey et al (US 2020/0270866 A1) in view of Morris (US 2018/0195292 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Yancy teaches a roof laminate (e.g., roofing membrane) (201) to be secured to a roof deck comprising a roof membrane (e.g., waterproofing liner) (202) that has a first surface and a second surface and is configured to be secured to the roof deck; and a protective sheet that is removably affixed to the first surface (e.g., release liner) (203); the protective sheet being removable after the roof membrane is secured to the roof deck (e.g., the release liner is intended to be removed as a last or nearly-last step in the installation of roofing membrane on a roof) (para 27-29, 32, 41; fig 2).
Yancy does not expressly teach the limitation “in the absence of an adhesive and in the absence of a tackifier.” However, Yancy teaches the waterproofing layer (202) and release liner (203) may simply be subjected to heat and pressure during the manufacturing of roofing membrane (201), forming a temporary light attachment between the two (i.e., thermally, removably affixed) (para 41); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the absence of an adhesive and in the absence of a tackifier since neither would have been needed. Furthermore, Yancy teaches tackifiers are optional (para 42).
Yancy fails to suggest the protective sheet (e.g., release liner) is made from PVC. However, Yancy teaches the protective sheet may be made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or other suitable materials (para 34).
Morris teaches protective films used on construction panels in roofing applications (abstract, para 2) wherein the protective films include materials based on polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride (para 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polyvinyl chloride of Morris for the polyethylene or polypropylene in the protective sheet (i.e., release liner) of Yancy, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Yancy teaches the release liner is intended to be removed as a last or nearly-last step in the installation of roofing membrane on a roof; and the roofing membrane may be installed with release liner in place, and workers permitted to walk on the roof (on top of release liner) to complete later tasks in the construction or re-roofing of the building. For example, workers may seal joints between strips of roofing membrane, may seal around any penetrations of the roof, may install and connect electrical or mechanical equipment on the roof, or may perform other tasks (para 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pressure and heat applied to the release liner upon attaching it to the waterproofing liner to optimize the temporary bond between the two and the force it takes to separate the two (i.e., the peel value); so accidental separation does not take place while the release liner is serving its protective purpose, e.g., being subjected to the foot traffic of workers and or other stresses such as bad weather.
Regarding claim 21, Yancy teaches the roof membrane is made of PVC (para 1, 28).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Yancy teaches the roof laminate of claim 9. Yancy further teaches the release liner may comprise multiple layers (para 34) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the protective sheet includes a first layer directly secured to a second layer, the second layer being removably affixed to the first surface of the roof membrane in the absence of the adhesive and in the absence of the tackifier between the second layer and the first surface; and an anti-slip layer.
Yancy teaches the layers or release liner may have a pattern of raised areas (e.g., elongated bumps) spaced apart by recessed areas or texture for the purpose of friction (para 49-52); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the anti-slip layer being configured to improve traction before the protective sheet is removed from the roof membrane.
Yancy fails to teach the anti-slip layer is of rubbery or tacky polymers formed on the first layer of the protective sheet; wherein the rubbery or tacky polymer of the anti-slip layer is a polymer selected from block copolymers, amorphous poly- alpha olefin, vinyl acetate/ethylene, and ethylene-vinyl acetate.
However, Yancy teaches the protective sheet (e.g., release liner), and therein, its multiple layers, may be made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or other suitable materials (para 34).
Morris teaches protective films used on construction panels in roofing applications (abstract, para 2) wherein the protective films include materials based on polyethylene, polypropylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate (i.e., rubbery or tacky polymers) (para 20).
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the ethylene vinyl acetate of Morris for the polyethylene or polypropylene in anti-slip layer of Yancy, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 24, Yancy teaches a roof laminate (e.g., roofing membrane) (201) to be secured to a roof deck comprising a roof membrane (e.g., waterproofing liner) (202) that has a first surface and a second surface and is configured to be secured to the roof deck; and a protective sheet that is removably affixed to the first surface (e.g., release liner) (203); the protective sheet being removable after the roof membrane is secured to the roof deck (e.g., the release liner is intended to be removed as a last or nearly-last step in the installation of roofing membrane on a roof) (para 27-29, 32, 41; fig 2).
Yancy further teaches the release liner may comprise multiple layers (para 34) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the protective sheet includes a first layer directly secured to a second layer, the second layer being removably affixed to the roof membrane; and an anti-slip layer.
Yancy does not expressly teach the limitation “in the absence of an adhesive and in the absence of a tackifier.” However, Yancy teaches the waterproofing layer (202) and release liner (203) may simply be subjected to heat and pressure during the manufacturing of roofing membrane (201), forming a temporary light attachment between the two (i.e., thermally, removably affixed) (para 41); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the absence of an adhesive and in the absence of a tackifier since neither would have been needed. Furthermore, Yancy teaches tackifiers are optional (para 42).
Yancy teaches the layers or release liner may have a pattern of raised areas (e.g., elongated bumps) spaced apart by recessed areas or texture for the purpose of friction (para 49-52); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the anti-slip layer being configured to improve traction before the protective sheet is removed from the roof membrane.
Yancy fails to teach the anti-slip layer is of rubbery or tacky polymers formed on the first layer of the protective sheet.
However, Yancy teaches the protective sheet (e.g., release liner), and therein, its multiple layers, may be made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or other suitable materials (para 34).
Morris teaches protective films used on construction panels in roofing applications (abstract, para 2) wherein the protective films include materials based on polyethylene, polypropylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate (i.e., rubbery or tacky polymers) (para 20).
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the ethylene vinyl acetate of Morris for the polyethylene or polypropylene in anti-slip layer of Yancy, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 25, Yancy teaches a roof laminate (e.g., roofing membrane) (201) to be secured to a roof deck comprising a roof membrane (e.g., waterproofing liner) (202) that has a first surface and a second surface and is configured to be secured to the roof deck; and a protective sheet that is removably affixed to the first surface (e.g., release liner) (203); the protective sheet being removable after the roof membrane is secured to the roof deck (e.g., the release liner is intended to be removed as a last or nearly-last step in the installation of roofing membrane on a roof) (para 27-29, 32, 41; fig 2). Yancy teaches the waterproofing layer (202) and release liner (203) may simply be subjected to heat and pressure during the manufacturing of roofing membrane (201), forming a temporary light attachment between the two (i.e., thermally, removably affixed) (para 41).
Yancy fails to suggest the protective sheet (e.g., release liner) is made from PVC. However, Yancy teaches the protective sheet may be made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or other suitable materials (para 34).
Morris teaches protective films used on construction panels in roofing applications (abstract, para 2) wherein the protective films include materials based on polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride (para 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polyvinyl chloride of Morris for the polyethylene or polypropylene in the protective sheet (i.e., release liner) of Yancy, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yancey as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Miller et al (US 2004/0258890 A1).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16, Yancy teaches the roof laminate of claim 10. Yancy further teaches the release liner may comprise multiple layers (para 34) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the protective sheet includes at least a first layer directly secured to a second layer and the second layer is removably affixed to the roof membrane.
Yancy fails to teach one of the first layer and the second layer includes text or other indicia; wherein one of the first layer and the second layer is colored; and wherein the first layer includes a coating that produces less than 20 gloss units at 600.
Miller teaches removable films for use on plastic substrates in an outdoor environment that contain a presence indicator wherein the presence indicator includes a detectable and preferably a visibly detectable characteristic such as color, opacity, ink, metal, non-reflectance, patterns, words, and/or logos (para 5-6, 15, 31, 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the removable films of Miller with the release liners of Yancy for release liners with visibly detectable characteristics. Furthermore, per Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add and adjust any and all presence indicators in the removable or protective film of French as modified by Miyazaki to optimize its reflectance or gloss.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Yancy teaches the layers or release liner may have a pattern of raised areas (e.g., elongated bumps) spaced apart by recessed areas or texture for the purpose of friction (para 49-52); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pattern size of the pattern to optimize the static, dry coefficient of friction and static wet coefficient of friction of the layers or release liner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783