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 Objections The following claim(s) are objected to because of these informalities: In claim 18 , line 3 “ a large format tile” should read “the large format tile”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 34 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 34, lines 4-5 recite " preferably from about 2.6:1 to about 3:1 and from about 17 pm to about 20 pm, respectively ". The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) . For the purpose of examination, claim 34 reads on the ranges recited before the preferably clause . 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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claims 18-19, 22-23, 27-30 , 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluter (US PG Pub 2016/0186431) in view of Gahlmann (US PG Pub 2013/0065997). Regarding claim 18 , Schluter teaches a method for mounting a large format tile to a wall (paras. 0035-0038, 0043-0044) comprising the steps of: applying an adhesive composition to a back surface of the large format ceramic tile (para. 0038) , wherein the tile has a surface area of at least 0.25 square meter or more ( per para. 0038 the tiles are 50x50cm or more = 0.5x0.5m or more = 0.25 square meters or more ), encompassing the claimed range and rendering it obvious for the reasons given below, and the adhesive composition is moisture-curable ( per para. 0038 a silane-modified, polymer-based adhesive, which is moisture curable) ; and applying the large format tile to a substantially vertically-extending wall surface ( paras. 0038, 0043-0044 wherein the load-bearing underground 2 , which is a term of the constructure arts referencing part of the substructure of the wall , is normally vertical per para. 0036 ) by contacting the back surface of the tile with the wall surface prior to full curing of the adhesive composition (paras. 0043-0044) . A prior art range which encompasses, partially overlaps, or touches the claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, in the absence of any unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.I and In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Schluter is silent regarding the other recited compositional features of the adhesive. Gahlmann teaches a moisture-curable adhesive composition (paras. 0033-0069 and claims 1-8 ) compris ing : (i) a polymer component selected from a silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide (paras. 0034 and 0052) and/or a polyurethane (paras. 0016-0017 and 0052) ; (ii) a plurality of amino-silane modified wollastonite fibers (paras. 0038 and 0056-0057) ; (iii) a filler (paras. 0053-0054, 0056, and 0071) ; and (iv) a rheology modifier (para. 0069). Gahlmann teaches that this adhesive has excellent adhesion properties on ceramics, wood-based materials, gypsum, textile fibrous materials, and other common wall construction materials (para. 0090). Galhlmann further teaches that this adhesive is easy to apply, has sufficiently long open time, does not endanger health and environment, is free of water, solvents and phthalates, and has high adhesive strength (para. 0028). The courts have held that selection of a known material on the basis of suitability for its intended use is obvious and within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301. See MPEP § 2144.07, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) . In view of Gahlmann’s teachings and the above considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Gahlmann’s adhesive for the adhesive in Schluter ’s method to predictably obtain a suitable adhesive for mounting large format tiles to walls and/or obtain the benefits taught by Gahlmann as cited above. Regarding claim 19 , Schluter teaches the large format tile has dimensions of at least 0.5 x 0.5 meters (para. 0009), thus encompassing the claimed range and rendering it obvious . Regarding claim 22 , Gahlmann teaches a) the plurality of amino-silane modified wollastonite fibers have an average aspect ratio of from about 3 :1 to about 12:1 (para. 0038), falling within the claimed range, and an average fiber length of from about 15-60 microns, partially overlapping the claimed range ; and b) the filler comprises at least two fillers (paras. 0036-0038, 0057) , wherein one of said fillers is untreated (para. 0071) and a second of said fillers is treated with a modifier selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid derivative, a silane, and mixtures thereof (paras. 0056-0057) and wherein one of said fillers has an average particle size of between about 0.8 to 4.0 microns, partially overlapping the claimed range, and a second of said fillers has an average particle size of between about 0.2 to 0.7 microns (para. 0037) , wherein at least one of said fillers is irregularly shaped (paras. 0036-0038) . Regarding claim 23 , Gahlmann teaches the polymer component is the silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide and is present in an amount of about 5 to about 40% by weight (para. 0034) . Regarding claim s 27 -28 , Gahlmann teaches the adhesive composition further comprises a plurality of irregularly-shaped crumb rubber particles having an average particle size of between about 0.5 to 1.5 mm in an amount of 0.5 to about 10% (obvious in view of para. 0071 with selection of particles of this range or general conditions an obvious and routine design selection for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a workable process in the absence of any unexpected results from the recited feature) . Regarding claim 29 , Gahlmann teaches the adhesive composition further comprises a dehydrating agent (claim 8) , an adhesion promoter, and a catalyst (paras. 0058-0060) . Regarding claim 30 , Gahlmann teaches the silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide comprises: a first silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide comprising a methoxysilyl chain polymer and having a branched polyether backbone; and a second silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide comprising a methoxysilyl chain polymer and having a linear polyether backbone (para. 0052) . Regarding claim 33 -34 , Gahlmann teaches the average aspect ratio of the plurality of the amino-silane modified wollastonite fibers is from about 3 :1 to about 12 :1 and the average fiber length of the amino-silane modified wollastonite fibers is from about 15-60 microns (para. 0038), rendering the claimed ranges obvious. Regarding claim 35 , Schluter teaches the polymer component is the polyurethane and the polyurethane comprises a silane-modified polyurethane (paras. 0016-0017 and 0052) . Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluter in view of Gahlmann , as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Duve (US PG Pub 2013/0167463). Regarding claim 20 , Schluter and Gahlmann do not explicitly teach this feature. However, Duve teaches that filler material affects tile density (e.g. claim 11). Thus, in view of Duve’s teaching, using a large format tile with an area density of between about 0.5 to about 2.9 lbs /ft 2 is an obvious and routine design selection for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a workable process in the absence of any unexpected results from the recited feature Regarding claim 21 , Schluter and Gahlmann do not explicitly teach this feature. However, it is routine and conventional in the tile mounting arts to repositio n a tile by moving the tile in a direction parallel to the wall surface to ensure satisfactory tile alignment , as taught for example by Duve (para. 0028 ), rendering this step an obvious addition to the method of Schluter in view of Gahlmann to predictably achieve satisfactory tile alignment. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schluter in view of Gahlmann , as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Yuan ( J. Mater. Sci., 2008, Vol. 43, pp. 6057-6063 ). Regarding claim s 24 -26 , Gahlmann teaches the composition comprises 10 to 30% by weight of moisture reactive silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide (paragraph 0036 - overlaps with the amount of silane-terminated polyalkylene oxide in present claims 3, 4 and 5); 3 to 15% by weight of surface hydrophobized wollastonite (paragraph 0038 - overlaps with the amount of aminosilane modified wollastonite in present claims 3, 4 and 5); and up to 20% by mass of plasticizer (paragraphs 0064) which overlaps with the amount of plasticizer in present claims 3, 4 and 5). Gahlmann is silent with respect to amount of loading of amino-silane of wollastonite fibers. However, Gahlmann teaches that in order to improve the adhesion properties, the adhesive preferably comprises 0.3 to 4% by mass of silane-modified adhesion promoter such as 3-aminopropyltrimethoxyslane (paragraph 0059). Furthermore , Yuan teach es that incorporation of wollastonite improved tensile strength of the system. When wollastonite fibers were coated with aminosilane , the impact strength and processability were enhanced greatly. There is good adhesion between the coated fiber reinforcement and matrix (abstract). Silane coupling agents have the ability to form a durable bond between organic and inorganic materials (page 6058, col. 2, 1st full paragraph). Aminosilane surface coupling agent is used to change the wollastonite reinforcement from having a relatively high energy surface to having a low energy surface producing better adhesion with polymer matrix (page 6058, col. 2, 2ⁿᵈ full paragraph). Therefore, since Gahlmann contemplates addition of the adhesion promoter such as 3-amino propyltrimethoxysilane in amounts of 0.3 to 4% by mass to an adhesive composition comprising 3 to 15% by weight of wollastonite and Yuan teaches that surface modification of wollastonite with silane coupling agent improves impact strength and processability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the wollastonite with an adhesion promoter such as 3-amino propyltrimethoxysilane in overlapping amounts (i.e. loadings up to about 35% by weight based on amount of wollastonite), prior to adding wollastonite and adhesion promoter to the adhesive composition of Gahlmann to achieve the benefits described above . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 31-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4318 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Phillip Tucker can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1095 . 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. /JIMMY R SMITH JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 1745