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.
Claims 17-21, 23-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0087612) in view of Frenzel (PG Pub. 2012/0214920).
Regarding claims 17, 23-24, 27-28, 33-34 and 38, Hart et al. teaches a scrim (10) comprising a mesh of inorganic fibers directly or indirectly at least partially coated with a solidified plastisol composition comprising a plasticizer (taught in 0036), a polymeric resin dispersed throughout the plasticizer (taught in Abstract, 0006 and 0036), and one or more curatives (HOC or hydrolysable organosilicon compound) [0001, 0007-0008, 0026, and 0036]. The mesh of inorganic fibers defines a plurality of cross-points and plurality of open spaces [claim 27]. Hart et al. are silent regarding the plasticizer being bio-based. However, Frenkel teaches a bio-based plasticizer comprising one or more epoxy groups (epoxidized fatty acid monoesters or epoxy ester with conventional plasticizers (which is a synthetic plasticizer) [0147]) in the claimed amount taught in the Abstract (and further Hart et al. teach the plasticizer in the claimed amount in 0037) in order to improve migration and be more environmentally friendly. The bio-based plasticizer accounts for the claimed percentage by weight of the total plasticizer content since one bio-based plasticizer is taught. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sole bio-based plasticizer accounting for the claimed total amount of plasticizer in order to be environmentally friendly and have consistent properties in the plastisol and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-based plasticizer of Frenkel in Hart et al. in order to improve migration and be more environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed plasticizer being crosslinked and the epoxy groups being crosslinked via a curative. It is noted that Hart does teach epoxy groups and the Office Action did not state that Hart does not teach epoxy groups. Marzocchi teaches crosslinked plastisol containing an amine cure accelerator (curative) including ethylene diamine and epoxidized soybean oil in order to improve strength, accelerate curing and provide improved hardening. The solidified plastisol composition has a total plasticizer content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crosslink the plastisol and include the curative and epoxidized soybean oil crosslinked via the one or more curatives of Marzocchi in the previous combination in order to improve strength, accelerate curing and provide improved hardening and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the inorganic fibers are substantially completely coated with the solidified plastisol composition and define a solidified plastisol coating layer and the solidified plastisol coating layer is positioned directly onto the inorganic fibers and the solidified plastisol coating layer is directly adjacent the inorganic fibers (this is taught explicitly in 0057 and claim 19).
Regarding claim 19, the scrim further comprises a sizing composition positioned directly adjacent the inorganic fibers and located between the inorganic fibers and the solidified plastisol coating layer (Hart et al states “…the inorganic fibers making up the scrim can include a sizing composition positioned directly adjacent the inorganic fibers (e.g., coated as an initial coating layer) and at least partially sandwiched between the inorganic fibers and the plastisol coating layer (e.g., coated as a secondary coating).” [0057].
Regarding claim 20, Hart et al. teaches a reinforced cementitious board comprising a matrix material comprising a cementitious material having opposed generally planar surfaces and opposed edges (See Fig. 5) and at least one scrim disposed on top at least one of the opposed generally planar surfaces or within the matrix material [0009, 0062-0063 and Fig. 5]. Hart states “The reinforced cementitious boards include at least one scrim (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.), according to certain embodiments of the present invention, disposed on top of at least one of the opposed generally planar surfaces or embedded within the matrix material.” in 0009. The scrim comprises a mesh of coated fibers with the fibers defining a plurality of cross points and a plurality of open spaces [0009].
Regarding claim 21, the inorganic fibers comprise a yarn of inorganic filaments that comprise fiberglass [0045 and 0047].
Regarding claim 25, the epoxy-esters comprise epoxidized vegetable oil [0115].
Regarding claim 26, the polymeric resin comprises a halide containing polymer (PVC) [0035].
Regarding claim 29, the solidified plastisol composition comprises a first ratio between the plasticizer (bio-based as taught by Frenkel above) and teaches “The additives used in combination with the plasticizer of the present invention in a halogen-containing polymer can be added in any amount suitable to achieve the desired purpose.” in order to be more environmentally friendly and also affect the properties of the plastisol. Frenkel teaches the synthetic plasticizer is an additive in claim 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed phr ratio of bio-based plasticizer and synthetic plasticizer in order to affect the properties of the plastisol and arrive at the claimed invention as Frankel teaches the ratio as a results effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-based plastisol in the claimed amount as taught by Frenkel in Hart et al. in order to be more environmentally friendly and also affect the properties of the plastisol and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, Hart et al. teach the scrim further comprising one or more hydrolyzable organosilicon compound ( Hart et al. teach one or more HOC and therefore one of the HOCs can be the curative and another meets the limitations of claim 30) [0021].
Regarding claim 31, the solidified plastisol composition comprises the claimed phr of the curative (or HOC) [0034].
Regarding claim 32, the curative comprises an amine functional crosslinker comprising an aliphatic amine (such as DAMO) [0030].
Claims 17-21 and 23-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0087612) in view of Frenzel (PG Pub. 2014/0309345, hereinafter referred to as ‘345).
Regarding claims 17, 23-24, 27-28, and 33-38, Hart et al. teaches a scrim (10) comprising a mesh of inorganic fibers directly or indirectly at least partially coated with a solidified plastisol composition comprising a plasticizer (taught in 0036), a polymeric resin dispersed throughout the plasticizer (taught in Abstract, 0006 and 0036), and one or more curatives (HOC or hydrolysable organosilicon compound) [0001, 0007-0008, 0026, and 0036]. The mesh of inorganic fibers defines a plurality of cross-points and plurality of open spaces [claim 27]. Hart et al. are silent regarding the plasticizer being bio-based. However, ‘345 teaches a bio-based plasticizer comprising one or more epoxy groups (epoxidized fatty acid monoesters and epoxy ester (epoxidized soybean oil) with conventional plasticizers (which is a synthetic plasticizer) [claims 28-35]) in the claimed amount taught as the entire plasticizer is the taught composition wherein the sum of the epoxidized fatty acid mono-esters and the epoxidized soybean oil is in the claimed range and the ratio of epoxidized soybean oil and epoxidized fatty acid monoesters is in the claimed range (and further Hart et al. teach the plasticizer in the claimed amount in 0037) [0039] in order to reduce plasticizer extraction, improve durability and flexibility and mechanical properties and be more environmentally friendly. The bio-based plasticizer accounts for the claimed percentage by weight of the total plasticizer content since one bio-based plasticizer is taught. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sole bio-based plasticizer accounting for the claimed total amount of plasticizer in order to be environmentally friendly and have consistent improved mechanical properties in the plastisol and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bio-based plasticizer of ‘345 in Hart et al. in order to improve migration and be more environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed plasticizer being crosslinked and the epoxy groups being crosslinked via a curative. It is noted that Hart does teach epoxy groups and the Office Action did not state that Hart does not teach epoxy groups. Marzocchi teaches crosslinked plastisol containing an amine cure accelerator (curative) including ethylene diamine and epoxidized soybean oil in order to improve strength, accelerate curing and provide improved hardening. The solidified plastisol composition has a total plasticizer content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crosslink the plastisol and include the curative and epoxidized soybean oil crosslinked via the one or more curatives of Marzocchi in the previous combination in order to improve strength, accelerate curing and provide improved hardening and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the inorganic fibers are substantially completely coated with the solidified plastisol composition and define a solidified plastisol coating layer and the solidified plastisol coating layer is positioned directly onto the inorganic fibers and the solidified plastisol coating layer is directly adjacent the inorganic fibers (this is taught explicitly in 0057 and claim 19).
Regarding claim 19, the scrim further comprises a sizing composition positioned directly adjacent the inorganic fibers and located between the inorganic fibers and the solidified plastisol coating layer (Hart et al states “…the inorganic fibers making up the scrim can include a sizing composition positioned directly adjacent the inorganic fibers (e.g., coated as an initial coating layer) and at least partially sandwiched between the inorganic fibers and the plastisol coating layer (e.g., coated as a secondary coating).” [0057].
Regarding claim 20, Hart et al. teaches a reinforced cementitious board comprising a matrix material comprising a cementitious material having opposed generally planar surfaces and opposed edges (See Fig. 5) and at least one scrim disposed on top at least one of the opposed generally planar surfaces or within the matrix material [0009, 0062-0063 and Fig. 5]. Hart states “The reinforced cementitious boards include at least one scrim (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.), according to certain embodiments of the present invention, disposed on top of at least one of the opposed generally planar surfaces or embedded within the matrix material.” in 0009. The scrim comprises a mesh of coated fibers with the fibers defining a plurality of cross points and a plurality of open spaces [0009].
Regarding claim 21, the inorganic fibers comprise a yarn of inorganic filaments that comprise fiberglass [0045 and 0047].
Regarding claim 25, the epoxy-esters comprise epoxidized vegetable oil [0115].
Regarding claim 26, the polymeric resin comprises a halide containing polymer (PVC) [0035].
Regarding claim 29, Hart is silent regarding the ratio of bio-based plasticizer to synthetic plasticizer. However, “345 teaches the claimed ratio of bio-based plasticizer to synthetic plasticizer in order to affect the flexibility of the plasticizer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ratio of bio-based plasticizer to synthetic plasticizer in order to affect the flexibility and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 30, Hart et al. teach the scrim further comprising one or more hydrolyzable organosilicon compound ( Hart et al. teach one or more HOC and therefore one of the HOCs can be the curative and another meets the limitations of claim 30) [0021].
Regarding claim 31, the solidified plastisol composition comprises the claimed phr of the curative (or HOC) [0034].
Regarding claim 32, the curative comprises an amine functional crosslinker comprising an aliphatic amine (such as DAMO) [0030].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the claimed plasticizer being crosslinked and the epoxy groups being crosslinked via a curative. It is noted that Hart does teach epoxy groups and the Office Action did not state that Hart does not teach epoxy groups. Marzocchi teaches crosslinked plastisol containing an amine cure accelerator (curative) including ethylene diamine and epoxidized soybean oil in order to improve strength, accelerate curing and provide improved hardening. Further, ‘345 teaches biobased plasticizer in the claimed amount. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments of the prior art not teaching the bio-based plasticizer in crosslinked form are not found to be convincing. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used but Relevant
US Pat. 9,981,932 teaches a bio-derived based plasticizer used in PVC.
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.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights