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
Claim 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 2009/0249728 A1) in view of ESCSI (NPL) and Pinault et al. (US 7,125,601 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, 4 and 5, Teng teaches a roofing granule that can comprise granules of expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale, porous mineral based materials. (Paragraph 0010, 0040). ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clary and expanded clay are inherently heat-treated materials due to their method of making, expansion caused by the heat-treatment. (Page 1-6 – 1-7).
Teng does not teach the granules have a moisture absorption of at least 7 wt%.
However, ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale will have a moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%. (Page 10-7). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). ESCSI also teaches having high moisture absorption, due to high porosity, reduces internal stresses due to the freezing. (Page 10-53). Therefore, it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the granules of Teng would inherently have the same moisture absorption range as taught by ESCSI and having this high moisture absorption range allows for less stress to granule during freezing conditions as taught by ESCSI.
Teng does not specifically teach the granules are coated in ceramic coating with a pigment. Teng does teach it is known that roofing granules can be colored (Paragraph 0036).
Pinault teaches a roofing material comprising a ceramic coating with a colorant (pigment) applied to the granules. Pinault teaches this colored ceramic coating provides the advantage of adding desired aesthetics to the granule and allows for other beneficial properties to added to the particle, such as anti-microbial properties. (Column 6, Lines 24-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the claimed ceramic coating with a pigment to the heat-treated granules of Teng.
Regarding Claim 2-3, Teng teaches the roofing granules comprise granules of expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale. (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 8, Teng teaches the granules can have a density of 30 to 70 lb/ft3 or less than 70 lb/ft3 (Claim 14 of Teng; Paragraph 0026, 0030, 0039). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng, ESCSI and Pinault, in further view of Panzarella et al. (US 2018/0194684 A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Teng does not specifically teach the heat-treated granules have the claimed Abrasion Resistance.
Panzarella teaches roofing granules (Abstract) having an Abrasion Resistance of Roofing Granules measured using the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturer's Association (ARMA), titled Abrasion Resistance of Roofing Granules, ARMA Granule Test Procedures Manual of not greater than 6% is suitable for commercial use. (Paragraph 0059-0060, 0138). This overlaps the claimed range of less than 3%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the Abrasion Resistance range of the heat-treated granules taught by Teng to the claimed range in order for the heat-treated granules to be able to match current commercial granule performance.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng, ESCSI, and Pinault in further view of Vermilion et al. (US 2015/0240495 A1).
Regarding Claim 10-11, Teng teaches additional granules can be used with heat-treated granules. (Claim 12 of Teng; Paragraph 0030). Teng teaches these additional granules can be coated. (Paragraph 0045). Teng does not specifically teach type of coating or the moisture absorption range of the additional granules.
Vermillion teaches applying a hydrophobic coating to roofing granules (Claim 11 of Vermillion; Paragraph 0040). Vermillion teaches this hydrophobic coating onto particles reduces granules loss during handling and installation of the shingles and prevents water from entering into the shingles. (Paragraph 0050). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a hydrophobic coating onto the additional roofing granules of Teng as taught by Vermillion.
Teng and Vermillion do not specifically teach the additional granules have a moisture absorption of less than 5 wt%. However, ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale will have a moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%. (Page 10-7). Vermillion teaches hydrophobic coating reduces wetting, which prevent the amount of water able to enter and contact the particle. Thus, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect expanded slate, expanded clay and expanded shale, when uncoated having moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%, to have a moisture absorption of lower than 5 wt% when coated with a hydrophobic coating which prevent wetting of the particle and reduce porosity of the particle.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng in view of ESCSI
Regarding Claim 12, Teng teaches a shingle comprising substrate, an organic coating (asphalt) and an aggregate of expanded shale, expanded slate or expanded clay, porous and mineral aggregates. (Paragraph 0010-0011, 0018; Claim 12 of Teng). ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clary and expanded clay are inherently heat-treated materials due to their method of making, expansion caused by the heat-treatment. (Page 1-6 – 1-7).
Teng teaches the heat-treated aggregates are pushed into organic coating of asphalt, partially embedded. (Paragraph 0027).
Teng does not teach the granules have a moisture absorption of at least 7 wt%.
However, ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale will have a moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%. (Page 10-7). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). ESCSI also teaches having high moisture absorption, due to high porosity, reduces internal stresses due to the freezing. (Page 10-53). Therefore, it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the granules of Teng would inherently have the same moisture absorption range as taught by ESCSI and having this high moisture absorption range allows for less stress to granule during freezing conditions as taught by ESCSI.
Regarding Claim 13, Teng teaches the organic coating is asphalt. (Paragraph 0010-0011; Claim 12 of Teng).
Regarding Claim 14, Teng teaches the heat-treated aggregate is expanded shale. (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 15, Teng teaches the construction is a shingle (Paragraph 0018) Teng teaches the heat-treated granules are roofing granules and are pushed into asphalt, partially embedded. (Paragraph 0025-0027; Abstract).
Claim 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Teng and ECSI, in further view of Vermilion.
Regarding Claim 16-17, Teng teaches additional granules can be used with heat-treated granules. (Claim 12 of Teng; Paragraph 0030). Teng teaches these additional granules can be coated. (Paragraph 0045). Teng does not specifically teach type of coating or the moisture absorption range of the additional granules.
Vermillion teaches applying a hydrophobic coating to roofing granules (Claim 11 of Vermillion; Paragraph 0040). Vermillion teaches this hydrophobic coating onto particles reduces granules loss during handling and installation of the shingles and prevents water from entering into the shingles. (Paragraph 0050). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a hydrophobic coating onto the additional roofing granules of Teng as taught by Vermillion.
Teng and Vermillion do not specifically teach the additional granules have a moisture absorption of less than 5 wt%. However, ESCSI teaches expanded slate, expanded clay and/or expanded shale will have a moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%. (Page 10-7). Vermillion teaches hydrophobic coating reduces wetting, which prevent the amount of water able to enter and contact the particle. Thus, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect expanded slate, expanded clay and expanded shale, when uncoated having moisture absorption of 5 to 25 wt%, to have a moisture absorption of lower than 5 wt% when coated with a hydrophobic coating which prevent wetting of the particle and reduce porosity of the particle.
Regarding Claim 18, Teng teaches applying the heat-treated aggregates as roofing granules to the prime region of the shingle. (Paragraph 0011). Teng teaches the heat-treated aggregates are pushed into asphalt, partially embedded. (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding Claim 19-20, Teng does not specifically teach the construction article has a faster water desorption or reduced wet time relative to a comparative construction article, where the comparative construction article comprise additional granules having a moisture absorption of less than five percent but not the heat-treated, porous, mineral-based aggregate having a moisture absorption of at least seven weight percent by weight.
However, the instant Specification states that a heat-treated porous mineral aggregate having an absorption of at least seven percent by weight will have the claimed property or faster water desorption and reduced wet time relative to the comparative construction vehicle. Thus, as Teng, ECSCI and Vermillion teaches the claimed construction article with the claimed porous aggregate as the claimed roofing granule, then it would reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the claimed invention and construction material of Teng, ECSCI and Vermillion to have the same properties, including the faster water desorption and reduced wet time compared to a comparative construction article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior §103 rejection regarding Kragten has been found persuasive as a new ground of rejection has been made.
Applicant argues Teng teaches painting granules therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply a ceramic pigmented coating. This argument is found unpersuasive. Teng teaches granules can be painted or colored and also teaching coating for color is conventional (Paragraph 0036, 0045). In addition, Pinault teaches a ceramic coating can also provide additional beneficial properties, such as anti-microbial, along as coloring. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a ceramic coating to the granules of Teng.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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 Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights