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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 06/23/25 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions. New Claim 18 has been added to Group I. The election is made final.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 7 recites a “duroplastic binder,” this terminology lacks clear antecedent basis, the specification as filed only recites “binder.” 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.
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 1-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
In Claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation MD/CD ratio, after CD stretching from 15 % to 40%: is between 1 and 1.5 for weight per unit area of between 100 and up to 130 g/m2, is between 1 and 1.4 for 2, is between 1 and 1.3 for weight per unit area of between more than 160 and up to 200 g/m2, is between 1 and 1.25 for 2 and is between 1 and 1.2 for weight per unit area of between more than 250 and up to 350 g/m2, and the claim also recites 1.0 to 1.5 for 100-130 g/m2; 1 to 1.2 for 250 gsm to 350 gsm. The broadest is 1 to 1.5 the narrowest is 1 to 1.2 gsm. Also, the broadest of 1 to 1.5 includes 100-300 gsm 1.0 to 1.2 is not commensurate in scope with 1.0 to 1.5 as 1.0 to 1.5 recites 100 to 300 gsm. 1.0 to 1.2 is outside of the scope of 300 gsm reciting 350 gsm which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2154281A2 issued to Weiter.
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a nonwoven material for a roofing product comprising a spun bond nonwoven of polyester filaments, the polyester filaments having an individual titer between 1 and 16 dtex, the nonwoven material having a weight per unit area of between 100 and 350 g/m2, a specific tensile strength in machine direction (MD) between 0.3 daN m2/5cmg to 0.45 daN m2/5cm g, and a specific tensile strength in cross direction (CD) between 0.20 daN m2/5cm g to 0.35 daN m2/5cm g wherein a tensile strength ratio of the specific tensile strength MD to the specific tensile strength CD, i.e. a MD/CD ratio, after CD stretching from 15 % to 40%: is between 1 and 1.5 for weight per unit area of between 100 and up to 130 g/m2, is between 1 and 1.4 for 2, is between 1 and 1.3 for weight per unit area of between more than 160 and up to 200 g/m2, is between 1 and 1.25 for 2 and is between 1 and 1.2 for weight per unit area of between more than 250 and up to 350 g/m2;
Applicant is directed to the teachings of EP 2154281A2 issued to Weiter, who teach making base interlining for producing roofing membranes such as coated sarking membranes, roofing membranes and sealing membranes, preferably to produce bituminized sarking membranes, roofing membranes and sealing membranes [abstract, ¶¶ 0001-0002, 0084-0086]. The base interlining comprises at least a textile fabric. [¶¶ 0020-0022, 0028-0041]. Examples of such textile fabrics are woven fabrics, yarn sheets, knitted fabrics and preferably non-woven fabrics and most preferably spunbonded nonwovens and the fiber-forming materials are natural fibers and/or fibers composed of synthesized polymers [¶¶ 0028-0036]. At ¶ 0053, the instant reference teaches that the textile fabric may have a single-layer or multilayer structure.
At ¶¶ 0030-0031 and 0037 the instant reference teaches that the spunbonded non-wovens preferably consist of melt-spinnable polyesters and that spunbonded non-wovens which consist of at least 85 or 95 mole % polyethylene terephthalate are particularly advantageous.
At ¶ 0035, the instant reference teaches that the filament titer of the polyester filaments in spunbonded non-wovens is between 1 and 16 dtex, preferably 2 to 8 dtex. At ¶ 0041, they disclose that the monofilament titer of the substrate fibers and melt bonding fibers can be selected within wide limits. Examples of common titer ranges are 1 to 16 dtex, preferably 2 to 6 dtex.
At ¶¶ 0036 and 0041, the instant reference teaches that the textile surface or the spunbonded non-woven can also be a non-woven fabric which has been consolidated by means of a melt binder, said non-woven fabric containing substrate fibers and melt bonding fibers.
The weight per unit area of the textile fabric is between 20 and 500 g/m2 [¶¶ 0014 and 0055]
The thermal dimensional stability of the textile fabric is max. 0.9 % in the longitudinal direction and max. 0.75 % in the transverse direction, measured in conformity with DIN 18192 [¶¶ 0014 and 0063].
The maximum tensile force lengthwise/crosswise is > 500/ > 300 N/5 cm in conformity with DIN 29073 [¶ 0014].
The base interlining of the invention may have reinforcements as well as additional textile fabrics, preferably textile fabrics which are different from the first textile fabric, such as glass fibers [¶0014,
At ¶ ¶ 0060 and 0076, the instant reference teaches that the linear load of 100 to 150 daN/cm, particularly 125 to 140 daN/cm.
Regarding the tensile strength and the MD/CD ratio, after stretching it is the position of the Office that these claimed resultant properties, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Weiter. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. making roofing products with a base interlining formed from a spunbonded non-woven on the basis of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), having the same weight per unit area, same decitex, same linear load in one direction, same thickness, same thermal dimensional stability in both the machine and cross directions). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Weiter. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding modified Claim 2, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1, wherein the weight per unit area of the nonwoven material after crossly stretching is between 2-10 % lower than the weight per unit area of the nonwoven material before crossly stretching and the specific tensile strength in machine direction (MD) of the nonwoven after crossly stretching is between 1 % to 5 % lower than the specific tensile strength in machine direction (MD) of the nonwoven material before crossly stretching; Regarding the weight per unit area of the nonwoven material after crossly stretching is between 2-10 % lower than the weight per unit area of the nonwoven material before crossly stretching and the specific tensile strength in machine direction (MD) of the nonwoven after crossly stretching is between 1 % to 5 % lower than the specific tensile strength in machine direction (MD) of the nonwoven material before crossly stretching it is the position of the Office that these claimed resultant properties, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Weiter. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. making roofing products with a base interlining formed from a spunbonded non-woven on the basis of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), having the same weight per unit area, same decitex, same linear load in one direction, same thickness, same thermal dimensional stability in both the machine and cross directions). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Weiter. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding modified Claim 3, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1, wherein the nonwoven material consists of melt-spinnable polyesters and the melt-spinnable polyesters consist of at least 85 mol % polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0030-0031, where the instant reference teaches that Polyesters containing at least 85 mol % of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are particularly preferred.
Regarding modified Claim 4, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1,wherein a Thermal Dimensional Stability (TDS) of the nonwoven is below 1.7 %; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0014, 0061-0063, 0088 and claim 1 of the instant reference.
Regarding modified Claim 5, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1,wherein the MD/CD ratio is between 1 and 1.3; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding modified Claim 6, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1,further comprising glass fibers with a titer of between 20 tex and 150 tex spun into the nonwoven and/or a glass roving having a titer in between 15 tex to 70 tex incorporated into the nonwoven material; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0017-0019, where they teach glass fibers or rovings as an option and having a diameter of between 0.1 and 1 mm or 10 - 400 tex,
Regarding modified Claim 7, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1,further comprising a duroplastic binder applied to the nonwoven material; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0064.
Regarding modified Claim 8, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 1,wherein the nonwoven comprises a thickness between 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0058, where the instant reference teaches If the thickness before calendaring is in the range of about 1 to 2 mm, the thickness of the textile fabric after calendaring is preferably less than 1 mm, particularly less than 0.8mm, most preferably 0,75 mm and less. This range overlaps with that of Applicant.
Regarding modified Claim 17, where Applicant now seeks a base interlining in sarking, roofing, or coated sealing membrane, comprising the nonwoven material of claim 1; Applicant is directed to ¶0084, where Weiter teaches making base interlining for producing roofing membranes such as coated sarking membranes, roofing membranes and sealing membranes, preferably to produce bituminized sarking membranes, roofing membranes and sealing membranes which have to meet a wide variety of requirements. [abstract, ¶ 0084]
Regarding new Claim 18, where Applicant now seeks that the nonwoven material of claim 3, wherein the melt-spinnable polyesters consist of at least 95 mol % of polyethylene terephthalate; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0030-0031, where the instant reference teaches that Polyesters containing at least 85 or 95 mol % of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are particularly advantageous.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 20090233073A1 issued to Bornemann et al.
Bornemann et al. disclose making roofing and geotextiles [¶ 0046 and abstract] comprising spunbonded non-woven made of polyolefin filaments [polyester ¶¶ 0036-0037] having a titer <1.6 dtex, [20-150 tex equals 200-1500 decitex ¶¶ 0010, 0016, 0035, 0056 Example 1, ] the spunbonded non-woven having a surface weight ≦20 g/m2 [¶¶ 0009, 0016, 0035 and 0061] a density ≧0.06 g/cm3 [¶ 0009, 0016, 0022], a maximum tensile force of between 9.5 and 62 N in the direction of the machine [¶ 0024] and of between 4.5 and 35 N perpendicular to the direction of the machine [¶ 0025].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti R Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-3:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp