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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 16-22, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 4581090) in view of Pinault (US 2002/0160151), Lee (US 20070087166) and Tang (US 20160230392).
Regarding Claims 1 and 23, Snyder teaches a method of rehabilitating and waterproofing a roofing material (abstract) comprising: (a) obtaining a roofing material (abstract); (b) obtaining a coating composition comprising a polymeric resin and a carrier, wherein the coating composition is (i) substantially free of water (col. 2 ln. 63-67); (c) applying the coating composition to the roofing material to prepare a coated roofing material (col. 3 ln. 7-15); and (d) exposing the coated roofing material to a reaction generator to thereby solidify the coating composition on the coated roofing material (drying, application of heat, col. 3 ln. 15-21). Snyder teaches air (a drying period, col. 3 ln. 15-21). Snyder teaches application of heat in the drying period is optional (can also involve, col. 3 ln. 15-21), i.e. some embodiments including exposure to air at ambient temperatures. Snyder teaches the adhesive material covers the existing surface (Claim 1) and does not disclose saturating the roofing material. Snyder teaches the roofing material is attached to a roof prior to the step of applying the coating composition to the roofing material (col. 3 ln. 10-12). Snyder teaches the method further comprises applying roofing granules to the coated roofing material (col. 3 ln. 16-21).
Snyder does not explicitly teach a reaction generator to polymerize the coating composition; however, Pinault teaches adhesives for adhering granules for roofing applications, including polyurethane and acrylic adhesives, wherein the adhesives are cured by radiation or activation to effectively bond the granules to the underlying substrate ([0027], [0030]). Pinault teaches initiators and catalysts can optionally be utilized in the curable adhesive composition ([0029], [0043]). Pinault teaches the coating in the form of a liquid at at least 23F (applied at a temperature of about 60C to about 100C, and a viscosity in the range of 2500 centipoise to about 20,000 centipoise, [0040]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the adhesive and drying step of Snyder to include a curable adhesive and a curing process, as taught in Pinault, because they are known adhesives and attachment methods in the art and in order to achieve effectively bonded granules.
Pinault teaches acrylic adhesives ([0027]). The combined references do not explicitly teach polymethyl methacrylate; however, Lee teaches polymethyl methacrylate is a known acrylic adhesive in roofing compositions ([0018]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the acrylic adhesive of the combined references to include polymethyl methacrylate, as taught in Lee, because it is a known acrylic adhesive in the roofing art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with polymethyl methacrylate as in Lee.
The combined references do not explicitly teach the composition including natural oil, natural resin, or natural wax; however, Tang teaches natural resins are desirable additives for acrylic adhesion agents for roofing materials ([0025]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adhesive composition of the combined references to include a natural resin, as taught in Tang, because it is a known additive in the roofing art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with a natural resin as in Tang.
Regarding Claim 3, Pinault teaches the coating composition is an emulsion ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 4, Snyder teaches drying (col. 3 ln. 15-21).
Regarding Claims 5 and 24, Pinault teaches the coating in the form of a liquid at at least 59F (applied at a temperature of about 60C to about 100C, and a viscosity in the range of 2500centipooise to about 20,000 centipoise, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 10, Snyder and Pinault teach wherein the step of applying roofing granules to the coated roofing material occurs prior to the step of exposing the coated roofing material to a reaction generator (Snyder, drying col. 3 ln. 20-21) (Pinault, moisture activation, [0042-0043]).
Regarding Claim 12, Snyder teaches wherein the step of applying roofing granules to the coated roofing material is conducted by applying the roofing granules via a force action to embed the roofing granules in the coated composition (col. 1 ln. 22-26).
Regarding Claim 16, Snyder teaches a filler (silica, col. 3 ln. 1). Pinault teaches a filler, antioxidant, anti-Ultraviolet light agent, and algaecide ([0033], [0035], [0046]).
Regarding Claim 17, Snyder teaches a filler (silica, col. 3 ln. 1). Pinault teaches a filler in amounts of 0-70% by weight ([0033]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the filler amounts of the combined references to be any of those concentrations taught in Pinault, because Pinault teaches they are all suitable concentrations for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the adhesive of the combined references at any of the taught concentrations.
Regarding Claim 18, Pinault teaches the coating composition has a viscosity of 2500-20000 cP when in the form of a liquid ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 19, Snyder teaches spray application (col. 3 ln. 36). Pinault teaches spray or roll coating ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 20, The prior art teaches applying layers of coating material as discussed above; therefore, there is inherently an increase in thickness and weight after the coating process.
Regarding Claim 21, The combined references do not explicitly teach the cross-machine direction (CD) tear (gf) and machine direction (MD) tensile (lbf) of the coated roofing material; however, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With regard to the tear and tensile strength limitations, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed materials and method, so the claimed tear and tensile strength relating to the material sand method are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 22, Snyder teaches wherein the roofing material comprises at least one of weathered roofing shingles or dilapidating roofing shingles (col. 3 ln. 7-15, col. 1 ln. 1-12).
Claim(s) 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 4581090) in view of Pinault (US 2002/0160151), Lee (US 20070087166) and Tang (US 20160230392) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 16-22, and 23-24 above, and further in view of Goodrum (Goodrum, The PMMA Revolution, IIBEC Interface, 11/2016, pg. 12-15).
Regarding Claims 26-27, The combined references do not explicitly teach the polymerization at ambient temperatures; however, Goodrum teaches polymethylmethacrylate adhesive sealants of roofing wherein the adhesive is applied as a prepolymer liquid at room temperature and then cured under ambient conditions (i.e. air). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the acrylic adhesive and curing of the combined references to include a PMMA adhesive and ambient conditions, as taught in Goodrum, because it is a known acrylic adhesive and condition for polymerization in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with the acrylic adhesive and curing conditions of Goodrum.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 4581090) in view of Pinault (US 2002/0160151), Lee (US 20070087166) and Tang (US 20160230392) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 16-22, and 23-24 above, and further in view of George (US 5380552).
Regarding Claim 11, Pinault teaches granules coated to excess to provide the desirable coverage ([0042]). The combined references do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises removing excess roofing granules from the coated roofing material; however, George teaches a process for adhering granules to roofing systems wherein excess granules are removed (col. 8 ln. 56-61). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include excess granule removal, as taught in George, because it is a known process in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with excess granule removal as in George.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 4581090) in view of Pinault (US 2002/0160151), Lee (US 20070087166) and Tang (US 20160230392) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 16-22, and 23-24 above, and further in view of ‘586 (JP 10-328586).
Regarding Claim 13, Snyder teaches the granules applied by means of pressurized air (col. 1 ln. 22-26). The combined references do not explicitly teach wherein the force action comprises a pump sprayer; however, high pressure air generated from an air pump for spraying granular compositions in roofing applications is known in the art (‘586, Fig. 1, air pump 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pressurized air of Snyder to include an air pump for spraying, as suggested in ‘586, because it is a known method of applying granular compositions in the roofing art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of the combined references with pump spraying as in ‘586.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendments and arguments, filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and as necessitated by the amendment a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues while Pinault discloses, e.g., curable adhesives that can be cured by various types of activation (see, e.g., paragraph [0030] of Pinault). Pinault fails to teach or suggest the reaction generator comprises a catalyst or activator configured to polymerize the PMMA, as recited, inter alia, in independent claims 1 and 23. In response to Applicant’s argument, Pinault teaches acrylic adhesives and teaches the applied adhesive subjected to energy in the form of radiation, moisture activation, photoactivation, or combinations thereof ([0011]) to achieve curing and/or chain extension. Pinault teaches the curing decreases the amount of polymerizable material by its consumption in a chemical reaction ([0014]). This treatment of Pinault meets the claimed requirement of exposing to an activator configured to polymerize the PMMA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Tim Meeks can be reached on 5712721423. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712