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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 21-23, 27-40 and 42 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20, 24-26 and 41 have been cancelled. Claims 33-40 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claim 21, filed on 3/17/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-22, 27-32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keese et al. (US 2010/0159223 A1) in view of Herbert (US 2010/0151757 A1).
Regarding claims 21-22 and 31-32, Keese teaches a coated fabric that includes a reinforcement, a first coating disposed on the reinforcement, and a second coating disposed on the first coating (Abstract and [0046]-[0047]).
As illustrated in FIG. 3, a sheet material 300 can include a reinforcement layer 302 that is coated with layer 304 ([0020]). The layer 304 can be further coated with a layer 306 that includes a blend of perfluoropolymer and silicone polymer, such as the blend described “above” ([0020] and [0012]-[0015]). The examiner notes that silicone meets the claimed limitation “a precursor binder composition comprising a thermoset material.” The reinforcement layer 302 can be a fibrous woven or nonwoven reinforcement material, as described in relation to layer 202 of FIG. 2 ([0021] and [0018]). Exemplary embodiments include woven and non-woven materials formed of fibers selected from aramid, fluorinated polymer, fiberglass, graphite, polyimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyketones, polyesters, or a combination thereof ([0018]). In particular, the fibrous reinforcement includes a fiberglass reinforcement that has been cleaned or pretreated with heat ([0018]).
In a further embodiment, a top coat can be applied over the blend ([0023]). For example, a sheet material 400 illustrated in FIG. 4 can include a structure similar to that described in relation to FIG. 3, including a reinforcement 402 coated with a perfluoropolymer layer 404, which is in turn coated with a polymer blend layer 406 ([0023]). A further layer 408 can be applied over and disposed on polymer blend layer 406, for example, directly contacting layer 406 without intervening layers ([0024]). The additional layer 408 can be formed of a perfluoropolymer, such as PTFE, FEP, PFA, or any combination thereof (a coating binder composition comprising a thermoplastic material) ([0024]).
The examiner notes that the claimed binder formulation is met by the combination of the silicone polymer in the polymer blend layer and the perfluoropolymer (such as PTFE) in the additional layer. The blend (polymer blend layer 306/406) can include silicone polymer in an amount in a range of 2 wt % to 30 wt % based on the total weight of the fused blend ([0015]). This layer is applied in an amount of at least 1.5 osy, such as at least 1.8 osy, or even at least 2.0 osy ([0022]-[0023]). In a particular example, it can be applied in an amount of at least 4.0 osy, such as at least 6.0 osy, but in each case, the amount is not greater than 50 osy ([0022]). As these are relatively broad ranges, the examiner notes that in Example 1, a second coating (a blend) comprising 20 wt% silicone is applied in a weight of 2.22 osy (as calculated by the examiner, where 4.42 - 2.02 = 2.22). Keese teaches, generally, that the additional layer (e.g., PTFE) can be applied in an amount in a range of 0.5 osy to 2.5 osy, such as a range of 0.5 osy to 2.0 osy, a range of 0.5 osy to 1.5 osy, or a range of 0.5 osy to 1.0 osy ([0024). As calculated by the examiner using the amount of silicone in Example 1 and the narrowest range of 0.5 osy to 1.0 osy disclosed for the additional PTFE layer, the amount of silicone can range, for instance, from about 31% to about 47% with respect to the combined amount of silicone and PTFE (e.g., 0.444/[0.444+0.5] = 0.47).
In particular, the sheet material exhibits a desirable stiffness and hand which remarkably exhibits near isotropy with respect to the machine direction and the cross direction ([0028]). For example, the sheet material can exhibit a Gurley stiffness in the machine direction of not greater than 550 ([0028]). In particular, the Gurley stiffness in the machine direction is not greater than 525, such as not greater than 500 ([0028]). In the cross direction, the Gurley stiffness is not greater than 800, such as not greater than 600, or even not greater than 500 ([0028]). As calculated by the examiner, the sheet material would therefore have a Gurley stiffness of not greater than 1350 (MD+CD = 550+800).
Keese does not explicitly disclose the units of the Gurley stiffness.
However, Herbert teaches a glass fiber fabric reinforcement that includes a glass fabric containing multiple yarns containing glass filaments and a polymeric coating disposed onto the multiple yarns to form a coated glass fabric (Abstract). Scrim with very high Gurley Stiffness values, such as those over 5000 mg, would be too stiff to be wound around the spools, and any coating on the scrim would likely crack ([0076]). At the lower end of the range, the Gurley Stiffness should be at least 100 mg, and most preferably, about the same stiffness as a PVC plastisol coated scrim, which is currently the benchmark for flexibility. ([0076]). Herbert also teaches that binders or finishes can be applied in 1, 2 or 3 layers or passes ([0069]). The additional coating is distinguished from the sizing or binder used to bond the fibers together to form the individual layers, but can be the same or different composition ([0070]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the coated glass fiber reinforcement fabrics of Keese with a Gurley stiffness in a range of not greater than 1350 mg in order to provide a coated reinforcement fabric that can be wound around spools without the coating cracking, wherein the stiffness of the coated fabric is also within a range comparable to that of a reinforcement scrim that is the benchmark for flexibility (Keese: [0028]; Herbert: [0014] and [0076]).
Regarding claims 27-30, as applied above, Keese teaches in Example 1 that a second coating (a blend) comprising 20 wt% silicone is applied in a weight of 2.22 osy (as calculated by the examiner, where 4.42 minus 2.02 = 2.22 osy). This blend would comprise silicone (the precursor binder composition) in an amount of 0.444 osy (15.1 g/m2). Keese also teaches that the additional PTFE layer (the coating binder composition) can be applied in an amount in a range of 0.5 osy to 1.0 osy (17 g/m2 to 34 g/m2) ([0024).
Keese in view of Herbert does not explicitly disclose wherein the precursor binder composition is present in the bonded non-woven mat in an amount of 2 g/m2 to 6 g/m2, or wherein the coating binder is present in the bonded non-woven mat in an amount of 2 g/m2 to 8 g/m2.
However, Keese teaches that the sheet material can be passed through the emulsion of the blend at least once ([0046]). In particular, the sheet material can be passed through the emulsion of the blend twice or can be passed through the emulsion three or more times ([0046]). Keese also teaches that the additional layer or layers (e.g., the perfluoropolymer such as PTFE) can be coated on the sheet material by passing the sheet material through an additional emulsion ([0047]). Passes underlying the additional layers can be fused or semifused when the additional layer is coated ([0047]). (Also see Example 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the blend and the additional PTFE each in multiples passes (e.g., three or more passes for each), in such a manner that the individual weights of each pass add up to the total weights of polymer blend and additional perfluoropolymer (e.g. PTFE) taught by Keese. For instance, the examiner notes that for a total polymer blend weight of 0.444 osy (15.1 g/m2) and a total PTFE weight in a range of 0.5 osy to 1.0 osy (17 g/m2 to 34 g/m2), the individual weights of each pass would reasonably overlap with the claimed ranges (e.g., 15/4 = 3.75 g/m2, and 20/4 = 5 g/m2).
Regarding claim 42, Keese in view of Herbert does not explicitly disclose wherein the binder formulation on the nonwoven fiber web is in a core-shell arrangement, wherein the binder formulation comprises a precursor binder composition comprising a thermoset material in the form of a core on the nonwoven fiber web and a coating binder composition comprising a thermoplastic material in the form of a shell on the precursor binder composition.
However, Herbert teaches applying binder compositions in 1, 2 or 3 layers or passes, and further teaches that each yarn or coating should be as completely coated as possible to avoid corrosion (Herbert: [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the additional PTFE layer as a shell around the polymer blend layer in order to ensure that each yarn is coated as completely as possible, and to thereby avoid corrosion, as suggested by Herbert ([0068]-[0070]).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keese et al. (US 2010/0159223 A1) in view of Herbert (US 2010/0151757 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Dubey et al. (US 2012/0148806 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Keese in view of Herbert remains as applied above.
Keese in view of Herbert does not explicitly disclose wherein the bonded nonwoven mat has a tensile strength (MD+CD) of at least 105 N/ 50 mm.
However, Dubey teaches an improved mesh scrim that is designed to meet the following technical requirements: The initial tensile strength should not be less than 80 lbs/in (700 N/ 50 mm, as calculated by the examiner) in both directions ([0121]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the non-woven fiber mat of Keese in view of Herbert with an initial tensile strength of not less than 80 lbs/in (700 N/ 50 mm) in both directions in order to provide a glass fiber mesh scrim suitable for reinforcement of a cementitious board system, as suggested by Dubey (Abstract, [0033] and [0121]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “The instant claims require the thermoset layer to be in direct contact with the nonwoven web. Part 302 in Fig. 3 and part 402 in Fig. 4 are the nonwoven and part 306 and corresponding part 406 in Fig. 4 are the layer applied by the Examiner. As can be clearly seen from the Figures, layers 306/406 are not in direct contact with the nonwoven 302/402. There is clearly an intervening layer 304/404 between the two. Thus, Kreese cannot be read to teach or suggest this claim limitation. This is also the case for the "shell" layer of the instant claims, wherein claim 21 requires the coating binder to coat at least a portion of the precursor (thermoset) layer. In Figure 4 of Keese, "additional layer" 408 is clearly shown coating polymer "blend layer" 406, rather than the thermoset layer 404. This also applies to the limitations of claim 42, which reads "a coating binder composition ... in the form of a shell on the precursor binder composition." It does not appear that the remaining references can fill in the gap in teaching of Kreese.”
Regarding this contention, the nonwoven fiber web, as claimed in claims 21 and 42, is not limited to a web that consists of fibers only. Therefore, as applied above, the reinforcement layer 302/402 and the coated layer 304/404 together meet the claimed nonwoven fiber web limitation. Layers 306/406, which are in direct contact with this coated reinforcement layer, meet the claimed precursor binder composition limitation. Layer 408, which is applied over and disposed on layer 406, meets the claimed coating binder composition limitation, wherein the coating binder composition is on an exterior surface of the precursor binder (claim 21) and is in the form of a shell on the precursor binder composition (claim 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0251779 A1 (Tjaden) teaches a non-woven veil that comprises glass fibres and (optionally) a prebinder, where suitable binders include thermoplastic and thermoset resins ([0012] and [0036]). The non-woven veil is impregnated with a binder/filler composition, where examples of polymeric binders include thermoplastic and thermoset resins ([0048]-[0049]). The non-woven mats (facers) also preferably have a Gurley stiffness of at least about 1800 mg ([0095]). Also see [0040]-[0041] and [0071].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights