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
After reconsideration, the restriction requirement issued on 10/24/2025 has been withdrawn.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The full polymer names should be stated before an abbreviation is made; ethylene-methacrylate (EMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), biaxially oriented nylon (BON), oriented polypropylene (OPP), and ethylene/propylene (EP).
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 1-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 and 14, the claims require “a composite face structure laminated to each face of the polystyrene foam core” and “the composite face structure is laminated to each side of the polystyrene foam core along the inner copolymer layer”. There is an issue of antecedent basis, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain if the 6 faces of the foam core are the same as the 6 sides of the foam core, as it raises the issue of faces and sides being different locations on the core. This renders the limitation and the claims indefinite.
For purpose of examination, side means face.
Claims 2-13 and 15 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinelli et al. (US 2021/0347147 A1).
For purposes of examination, “each face” means all faces of a core. For a rectangular board, this means all six faces of the board must have a facer applied.
Regarding Claim 1, Savinelli teaches a composite board comprising a polystyrene foam core (Fig. 2, Item 10; Paragraph 0080) and a composite facer to at least one face of the foam core. (Fig. 7; Claim 1 of Savinelli). This overlaps the claimed range of each face. 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) Savinelli teaches the composite facer comprises an outer non-woven fabric layer (Fig. 2, Item 30), a central film layer (Fig. 2, Item 20), and an inner copolymer layer, and the composite facer is applied to every face of the foam core (Fig. 2, Item 15; Claim 1 of Savinelli).
Regarding Claim 2, Savinelli teaches the inner copolymer layer can be ethylene-methacrylate copolymer. (Paragraph 0083).
Regarding Claim 6, Savinelli does not specifically teach the central film layer thickness ratio to the inner copolymer layer. However, Savinelli teaches the thickness of the layers within board can be optimized depending on the intended use of the construction material. (Paragraph 0123). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness range of the materials and overlap or reach the claimed ranges to meet various construction needs.
Regarding Claim 8, Savinelli teaches the composite face structure is laminated via adhesive to each face of the foam core. (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Savinelli teaches the adhesive inner copolymer layer can be hot melt-adhesive copolymer. (Paragraph 0082-0083). Therefore, the composite face structure would need to be thermally laminated to the faces of the foam core to be adhered.
Regarding Claim 12, Savinelli teaches each layer of the composite face structure is laminated to an adjacent layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Savinelli teaches a composite board comprising a polystyrene foam core (Fig. 2, Item 10; Paragraph 0080) and a composite facer to at least one face of the foam core. (Fig. 7; Claim 1 of Savinelli). This overlaps the claimed range of each face. 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) Savinelli teaches the composite facer comprises an outer non-woven fabric layer (Fig. 2, Item 30), a central film layer (Fig. 2, Item 25), and an inner film layer, and the composite facer is applied to every face of the foam core (Fig. 2, Item 15; Claim 1 of Savinelli). Savinelli teaches the central film layer and the inner film layer comprise distinct materials have distinct properties. (Paragraph 0083, 0090).
Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinelli in view of Rancich et al (US 2014/0377519 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Savinelli does not specifically teach a LDPE positioned between the central film layer and the copolymer layer in each composite face structure.
Rancich teaches a waterproofing laminate structure to applied onto a substrate comprising a central film with non-woven fabric outer layers (Abstract; Claim 1 of Rancich). Rancich teaches applying a tie layer comprising a blend of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and ethylene/propylene (EP) copolymer, onto both sides of the central layer improves adhesion of the layers of the waterproofing layer structure. (Paragraph 0024-0025). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a LDPE/EP copolymer to both sides of the central film of Savinelli to improve adhesion.
Regarding Claim 4, Savinelli does not teach an intermediate film layer of PET, BON, or OPP is positioned between the LDPE layer and the central film layer.
Rancich teaches two layers of PET cross-laminated together offers a film laminate that can provide sufficient strength to yield a tough laminate. (Paragraph 0006, 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art use a double layer of PET cross-laminated as the middle layer of Savinelli, which would yield an intermediate PET layer between a PET central film layer and the LDPE layer and yield a tough laminate.
Regarding Claim 7, Savinelli does not teach the basis weight of the non-woven fabric layer.
Rancich teaches a suitable basis weight for an outer nonwoven fabric is 0.5 to 5 osy in order to yield a tough waterproofing sheet (Paragraph 0006, 0010). 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the same basis weight for non-woven fabric of Savinelli to yield a tough laminate.
Regarding Claim 11, Savinelli does not specifically teach the thickness of the central film layer.
Rancich teaches the central film layer can about 3 mils thick in order to yield a tough waterproofing sheet (Paragraph 0006, 0010; Claim 14 of Rancich). 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thickness for central film layer of Savinelli to yield a tough laminate.
Regarding Claim 13, Savinelli does not specifically teach a EP copolymer positioned between the central film layer and the outer non-woven fabric layer in each composite face structure.
Rancich teaches a waterproofing laminate structure to applied onto a substrate comprising a central film with non-woven fabric outer layers (Abstract; Claim 1 of Rancich). Rancich teaches applying a tie layer comprising a blend of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and ethylene/propylene (EP) copolymer, onto both sides of the central layer improves adhesion of the layers of the waterproofing layer structure. (Paragraph 0024-0025). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a LDPE/EP copolymer to both sides of the central film of Savinelli to improve adhesion, including between the central film layer and outer non-woven layer.
Regarding Claim 15, Savinelli teaches an intermediate film of polyester or HDPE (Fig. 2, Item 20; Paragraph 0085) but does not teach the polyester is PET.
Rancich teaches HDPE and PET are suitable as intermediate layer in forming tough waterproof laminates. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the PET as an intermediate layer of Savinelli to yield a tough laminate as taught by Rancich.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savinelli in view of Rancich and Barnes (US 6,284,344).
Regarding Claims 5 and 10, Savinelli does not specifically teach the central layer is a cross-laminated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) of two plies with cross orientation relative to each other.
Rancich teaches using this cross-laminated film where at least two HDPE plies are laminated with a cross orientation relative to each other in waterproofing membranes (Abstract; Paragraph 0026) Barnes teaches this cross-laminating of HDPE at cross orientation relative to each other greatly improves the strength of the resulting film. (Column 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use claimed central film layer in Savinelli as taught by Rancich and Barnes for a stronger board due to the strong central film.
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