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 .
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed September 02, 2025, claims 1 through 9 have been cancelled, claim 19 has been amended and claims 22 through 25 are new. Claims 10 through 21 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claims 10 through 25 are currently pending. Furthermore, claims 10, 17, 18, 20 and 21 appear to have incorrect status identifiers.
Claim 10 appears to have been amended because it contains underlined text but the claim has the status identifier of “Withdrawn”. Furthermore, the “amendment” to claim 10 appears to be the same one that was present in the claims previously filed on November 22, 2024.
Claim 17 has the status identifier of “Withdrawn and currently amended” however the underlined text/amendment presented in the claim is the same amendment present in the claims previously filed on November 22, 2024. Therefore, the claim 17 should have the status identifier of “Withdrawn”.
Claim 18 has the status identifier of “Withdrawn and currently amended” however the underlined text/amendment presented in the claim is the same amendment present in the claims previously filed on November 22, 2024. Therefore, the claim 18 should have the status identifier of “Withdrawn”.
Claim 20 currently has the status identifier “Withdrawn and Currently Amended” however not amendment appears in the claims. Any amendment to the text of the claim should be presented as a strikethrough of previously presented text or an underlining of additional text.
Claim 21 has the status identifier of “Withdrawn and currently amended” however the underlined text/amendment present in the claim is the same amendment present in the claims previously filed on November 22, 2024. Therefore, the claim 21 should have the status identifier of “Withdrawn”.
Applicant is advised to review MPEP section 714.II.C for the correct manner in which claims are to be amended and presented within a response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 02, 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of the new claims. Though the new claims contain limitations which were indicated as allowable in the previous Office Action and therefore overcome the previous prior art rejections the new claims are rejected under 112(b) for the reasons discussed in this Office Action and therefore are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 22 is indefinite because the claim discloses “A sealing system” however the claims also disclose limitations directed to steps. The term “system” is used to indicate that the claimed invention is an “apparatus” while inventions directed to a process are indicated as being a “process” or a “method”. It is suggested that claims 22 be amended to recite “A sealing process”.
Claim 22 is indefinite because step No. 4 of the claim discloses “a second, additional application of a liquid coating” and it is not clear if this “a second, additional application of a liquid coating” is the same as or different from the “first liquid coating”. The original claim 1 on which claim 22 is based on disclosed applying a “second, additional application of the first liquid coating”. For the purposes of this examination “a liquid coating” of step No. 4 will be considered the same as the “first liquid coating”.
Claim 22 is indefinite because step No. 4 o the claim discloses “a second chopped fiberglass” and it is not clear if this “second chopped fiberglass” is the same as or different from the “first chopped fiberglass”. The original claim 1 on which claim 22 is based on disclosed that in step No.4 a second, additional application of the liquid coating was applied on “the first chopped fiberglass”. For the purposes of this examination step No. 4 will be taken to require applying an additional application of the first liquid coating over the imbedded first chopped fiberglass.
Claim 23 is indefinite because the claim discloses “A sealing system” however the claims also disclose limitations directed to steps. The term “system” is used to indicate that the claimed invention is an “apparatus” while inventions directed to a process are indicated as being a “process” or a “method”. It is suggested that claims 23 be amended to recite “A sealing process”.
Claim 23 is indefinite because step No. 4 of the claim discloses “a second, additional application of a liquid coating” and it is not clear if this “a second, additional application of a liquid coating” is the same as or different from the “first liquid coating”. The original claim 1 on which claim 23 is based on disclosed applying a “second, additional application of the first liquid coating”. For the purposes of this examination “a liquid coating” of step No. 4 will be considered the same as the “first liquid coating”.
Claim 23 is indefinite because step No. 4 of the claim discloses “a second chopped fiberglass” and it is not clear if this “second chopped fiberglass” is the same as or different from the “first chopped fiberglass”. The original claim 1 on which claim 23 is based on disclosed that in step No.4 a second, additional application of the liquid coating was applied on “the first chopped fiberglass”. For the purposes of this examination step No. 4 will be taken to require applying an additional application of the first liquid coating over the imbedded first chopped fiberglass.
Claim 24 is indefinite because the claim discloses “A sealing system” however the claims also disclose limitations directed to steps. The term “system” is used to indicate that the claimed invention is an “apparatus” while inventions directed to a process are indicated as being a “process” or a “method”. It is suggested that claims 24 be amended to recite “A sealing process”.
Claim 24 is indefinite because step No. 4 of the claim discloses “a second chopped fiberglass” and it is not clear if this “second chopped fiberglass” is the same as or different from the “first chopped fiberglass”. The original claim 1 on which claim 24 is based on disclosed that in step No.4 a second, additional application of the liquid coating was applied on “the first chopped fiberglass”. For the purposes of this examination step No. 4 will be taken to require applying an additional application of the first liquid coating over the imbedded first chopped fiberglass.
Claim 25 is indefinite because the claim discloses “A sealing system” however the claims also disclose limitations directed to steps. The term “system” is used to indicate that the claimed invention is an “apparatus” while inventions directed to a process are indicated as being a “process” or a “method”. It is suggested that claims 25 be amended to recite “A sealing process”.
Claim 25 is indefinite because step No. 4 of the claim discloses “a second chopped fiberglass” and it is not clear if this “second chopped fiberglass” is the same as or different from the “first chopped fiberglass”. The original claim 1 on which claim 25 is based on disclosed that in step No.4 a second, additional application of the liquid coating was applied on “the first chopped fiberglass”. For the purposes of this examination step No. 4 will be taken to require applying an additional application of the first liquid coating over the imbedded first chopped fiberglass.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As was discussed in the previous Office Action, Olsen (U.S. Patent # 4,421,581) taught a process for forming/sealing a roof wherein a liquid coating was applied to a clean and dry surface/substrate followed by imbedding fibrous/fabric material in the applied liquid coating followed by applying a second application of the liquid coating over the imbedded fibrous/fabric material. However, Olsen does not fairly teach or suggest that the liquid coating consisted of either styrene-butadiene latex or styrene-butadiene rubber.
Conclusion
Claims 22 through 25 have been rejected and claims 10 through 21 are withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
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 MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712