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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 10-13, 15-17, 26, 27 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith N. Gray et al. U.S. Patent 5,707,904 (Gray) in view of Naresh R. Mehta et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0178322 A1 (Mehta) in view of James E. Dye et al. U.S. Patent 2009/0321001 A1 (Dye).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 15, and 16 and 26, Gray discloses a method and billboard sheeting material, comprising: a polyester scrim of billboard-scale dimensions (Column 1 Line 10-20 Column 3 Line 12-34), the polyester scrim (Element 30) having a first side and a second side; and a coating (claim 27) applied on the first side of the scrim to impart opacity to the billboard sheeting material (Column 2 Line 5-9), wherein no coating is applied on the second side of the scrim (abstract and claim 1 recitation of “at least one side”). Gray does not directly disclose the weight of the scrim and the denier yarn measurement. Mehta discloses the material comprising a material wherein the scrim has a weight of less than 2 ounces per square yard; wherein the material weighs less than 1.5 ounces per square yard; wherein the material weighs less than 7 ounce per square yard to 5 ounces per square yard ([0034]); wherein the material is made of at least about 420 or 500 denier yarn ([0038]); and wherein coatings applied to the scrim include a PVC coating ([0033-0035]).
Therefore it would have been have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify Gray as taught by Mehta to include Mehta’s scrim weight and composition, and PVC coating specific to application on the scrim. Such a modification would provide a means to provide a display on a material with alternative material properties.
Gray in view of Mehta does not directly disclose the PVC coating laminated directly to the first side of the scrim. Dye discloses a one pass direct lamination process wherein PVC coating is laminated on the scrim directly on one or both sides ([0029]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to modify Gray in view of Mehta as taught by Dye to include Dye’s single process direct lamination of the PVC coating on the scrim. Such a modification would provide a means to efficiently provide a finished scrim material to optimize the performance properties of the material.
Regarding claim 2, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material wherein the polyester scrim is unpigmented or white (Column 3 Line 12-34, Gray).
Regarding claim 3, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material comprising the polyester scrim (Element 30). Gray does not directly disclose the polyester scrim to be black. Mehta discloses the scrim to be black ([0020]). Such a modification would provide a means to display on a material with an alternative finish.
Regarding claims 10, and 29, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the method and material wherein the PVC coating comprises at least one of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polylactide acid (PLA), synthetic rubbers (CSM) such as chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE), reactive polyurethane (PUR), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), thermoplastic olefin (TPO), or another material; wherein the coating comprises white PVC (Column 1 Line 21-29; claim 28, Gray in view of Mehta).
Regarding claims 11, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material wherein the PVC coating includes an additive selected from the group consisting of: a processing aid, an adhesion aid, a filler, a heat stabilizer, a UV stabilizer, an anti- frost agent, an antimicrobial agent, a flame retardant, a pigment or a colorant (Column 2 Line 62-Column 3 Line 11, Gray in view of Mehta).
Regarding claim 12, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material characterized by a butterfly tear strength of at least about 30 lbs in the fill direction, and at least about 45 lbs in the warp direction (Column 4 Line 16-30, Gray).
Regarding claim 13, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material wherein opaque coating is applied to translucent coatings and thereby inherently alter the opacity of the material (Column 2 Line 5-8, Gray). Gray does not directly disclose the material characterized by an opacity of at least about 85%. The variation of opacity is a design modification based on the design preferences of the display specifications. It would be obvious to provide the amount of coating needed to yield the desired opacity of the display finish material.
Regarding claim 17, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material further comprising creative content printed on the coating (Column 1 Line 10-20, Gray).
Regarding claim 27, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the method wherein the coating is extruded during lamination in a single-pass operation (Column 5 Line 7-17, Gray).
Regarding claim 30, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the method further comprising rolling the billboard sheeting material to facilitate downstream processing (Column 5 Line 7-46, Gray).
Regarding claims 31-33, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the material wherein the PVC coating is extruded as a thin film and laminated in a single pass operation ([0024-0033], laminated layer single pass various material and forms disclosed); wherein the coating does not involve use of a tie-coat or through-bonding ([0024-0030], various material not limited); wherein the scrim of billboard scale dimensions is seamless (provided as single sheet as disclosed Mehta).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naresh R. Mehta et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0178322 A1 (Mehta) in view of Keith N. Gray et al. U.S. Patent 5,707,904 (Gray) in view of James E. Dye et al. U.S. Patent 2009/0321001 A1 (Dye).
Regarding claims 18-20, Mehta discloses a billboard sheeting material having dimensions and overall weight ([0034-0038]). Mehta does not directly disclose the dimension to be about 20x60 ft and the weight to be less than 65 or 53 lbs. Dimensional weight and material weight is a design modification well known in the art. Such a modification would provide a means to provide a material with the preferred material properties for the best application for displaying information. Gray discloses the material comprising a polyester scrim coated with PVC on a single side and wherein opaque coating is applied to translucent coatings and thereby inherently alter the opacity of the material (Column 2 Line 5-8, Gray).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify Mehta as taught by Gray to include Gray’s opaque coating. Such a modification would provide a means to alter the display.
Mehta in view of Gray does not directly disclose the material characterized by an opacity of at least about 85%. The variation of opacity is a design modification based on the design preferences of the display specifications. It would be obvious to provide the amount of coating needed to yield the desired opacity of the display finish material.
Mehta in view of Gray does not directly disclose the PVC coating laminated directly to the first side of the scrim. Dye discloses a one pass direct lamination process wherein PVC coating is laminated on the scrim directly on one or both sides ([0029]).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to modify Mehta in view of Gray as taught by Dye to include Dye’s single process direct lamination of the PVC coating on the scrim. Such a modification would provide a means to efficiently provide a finished scrim material to optimize the performance properties of the material.
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keith N. Gray et al. U.S. Patent 5,707,904 (Gray) in view of Naresh R. Mehta et al. U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0178322 A1 (Mehta) in view of James E. Dye et al. U.S. Patent 2009/0321001 A1 (Dye) in view of Glenn Gerrard R. Gatuslao U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0146121 A1 (Gatuslao).
Regarding claims 21-25, Gray in view of Mehta in view of Dye discloses the billboard sheeting material. Gray does not directly disclose the billboard to comprise a pole and frame. Gatuslao discloses a billboard comprising: a pole (Element 1); a signage frame (Figure 2) mounted on the pole: and the billboard sheeting material (Element 3) attached to the signage frame; further comprising creative content printed (Ads) on the billboard sheeting material; further comprising an extension or an embellishment (rotating feature); integrated with a public utility or a public lighting feature ([0021]); and a method of facilitating the manufacture of a billboard, comprising: providing the billboard sheeting material of claim 1 to a billboard manufacturing operation (Figure 1-3).
Therefore it would have been an obvious modification well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify in view of Mehta in view of Dye as taught by Gatuslao to include Gatuslao’s billboard structure. Such a modification would provide a means to apply the scrim material to a display system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the scrim weight o be less than 2 ounces per square yard and overall billboard sheeting material weight to be less than 7 ounces per square yard. The overall weight of the scrim and billboard sheeting is introduced to be having a range of 0.5-20 oz per square yard. The overall billboard sheeting material would be determined on how much more material is used as the billboard sheeting material. Mehta’s disclosure of varying the material weight teaches the variation by design choice of providing sheeting material of different weights.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SHIN H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/SHIN H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights