DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 8, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 8, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1-4 are amended, resulting in claims 1-5 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandel (US 2005/0130534)1 in view of Nonaka (US 2013/0210602)1.
With respect to claims 1-4, Brandel teaches a glass fiber textile fabric which is aesthetically pleasing and fibers particular applicability as a fabric for wall coverings (construction membrane material) (paragraph [0002]). The warp yarn used in the woven (plain weave), patterned glass fiber textile has a titer in the range of 155-300 tex, preferably 270-290 tex, most preferably about 278 tex (Tt) (paragraph [0012]). The weft yarn used together with the warp yarn can have a titer in the range of from 68 to 660 tex, preferably 190-350 tex, Most preferably 200-330 tex (Ty) (paragraph [0013]). It is noted that a 1 tex = 1 g/1000 m. The warp density (Wt) generally ranges from 2.5 to 20 threads/cm (6.25-50 threads/25 mm), preferably in the range of 6-10 threads/cm (15-25 threads/25 mm), with 6.5 threads/cm (16.25 threads/25 mm) being the most preferred (paragraph [0012]). The weft yarn density (Wy) ranges from 2.0 to 12 threads/cm (5-30 threads/25 mm), and is more preferably about 2.4 threads/cm (6 threads/25 mm) or 5.0 threads/cm (12.5 threads/25 mm) (paragraph [0013]).
Brandel is silent as to the warp and weft glass fibers having an average Al2O3 content of 17.5 mass% or more.
Nonoka teaches high elasticity glass fibers with an Al2O3 (At and Ay) content of 19.0-23.0 (paragraphs [0001], [0008]). When the Al2O3 content is 19.0% by weight or higher the elastic modulus of the glass fiber is raised (paragraph [0021]). On the other hand, when the content is 23.0% by weight or lower, the working temperature range of the glass is broadened (paragraph [0021]). The Al2O3 content is preferably 19.5 to 22.0% by weight, and more preferably 20.0 to 21.0% by weight based on the total weight of the composition of the glass fiber (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the warp and weft glass fibers of Brandel to have an Al2O3 content of 19.0-23.0, preferably 19.5-22.0, more preferably 20.0-21.0% by weight of the glass fiber composition in order to provide a glass fiber with improved elastic modulus and workability.
The most preferred value for Tt/Ty for the combination above is therefore 0.842-1.39 (278 tex/200-330 tex). This results in preferred values for formulas (1-1) and (1-2) ranging from 375 (when Ty = 200 tex and At = Ay = 20 wt%) to 422 (when Ty = 330 tex and At = Ay = 20 wt%). The preferred values for formulas (2-1) and (2-2) consequently range from 355 (when Ty = 330 tex, Tt/Ty = 0.842, and At = Ay = 20 wt%) to 521 (when Ty = 200 tex, Tt/Ty = 1.39, and At = Ay = 20 wt%).
The values for formula (2-2) ranges of Brandel in view of Nonoka substantially overlaps the claimed ranges in the instant claim 4. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Brandel in view of Nonoka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 5, Brandel in view of Nonoka teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Brandel further teaches the glass fiber textile may be coated in a conventional fashion to provide the final characteristics of the product (paragraph [0017]). Brandel does not explicitly teach the coating is applied to both the front and back surfaces of the fabric, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try coating the front, the back, and the front and the back of the glass fabric in order to determine which provides the desired final characteristics to the product. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Amendment
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to the claims due to informalities is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on June 8, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on June 8, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of the response Applicant submits that the cited references provide no motivation or suggestion to satisfy the independent relationship defined by the claimed formula, they merely recite the independent variable, failing to recognize the critical relationship between variables represented by the claimed formulas.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not explicitly teach the relationship between the claimed variables, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the instant case, as described in the rejections above, Brandel in view of Nonaka teaches the claimed variables with values that meet the claimed formulas. Therefore, the claim limitations are met.
On pages 7-8 of the response Applicant submits the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight as the ordinary artisan would be required to select from the ranges of the prior art in order to fulfill the claimed formula.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case, Brandel in view of Nonaka teaches specific ranges for the variables used in the formulas. As described in the rejection above, using the preferred ranges from the prior art results in values of 375-422 for formulas (1-1) and (1-2) and values of 355-521 for formulas (2-1) and (2-2). These values are either within or, in the case of claim 4, significantly overlap the claimed values. As such no specific variable selection needs to be made outside of the guidance provided by the prior art as any preferred value of the variable chosen within the ranges disclosed by the prior art will fulfill the claim requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights