DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 and 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/26 and 11/7/25.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al (US Publication 20120088071).
Bailey discloses a roofing material, wherein an adhesive is applied to the roofing material in a spray pattern through a nozzle. The nozzle may be configured to be sprayed at several angles coverages to form different patterns/textures and coverages (paragraph 82). The system comprises one or more rollers for conveying the substrate wherein an adhesive is sprayed through a nozzle. The nozzle can be controlled by a separate system (drive system) and that the spray pattern can be nozzle spray pattern can be sweep back and forth across the application area (paragraph 85). However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the pattern and the movement of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a drive system move the nozzle in a second direction across the roofing substrate material and forming the adhesive in a circular or helical pattern as it overlaps in scope of Bailey. Bailey teaches having a nozzle that sprays adhesive in patterns on the roofing and making a circular or helical pattern would be a suitable design choice of the pattern. Further having the drive system move the nozzle in a second direction across the substrate is also implied with the teaching of having a system to control the nozzles and having the nozzles move back and forth across the application area to control the design and pattern. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to claim 2, Bailey discloses that the nozzle can spray at different angles and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified Bailey and had the system have an eccentric drive mechanism to move the nozzles in different spray angles depending upon the emission pattern (paragraph 66 fig 11).
As to claims 3-4, Bailey discloses that the nozzles move in a back-and-forth motion that can be controlled to vary the spray pattern including coverage rates and thickness, pattern and other aspects. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have the first rate of movement be different from the second rate to create a different coverage thickness as it overlaps in scope of Bailey.
Claims 5-7, 9-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al (US Publication 20120088071) in view of Jones (US Publication 20070130863).
As to claims 5-7, and 9-11, Bailey renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the adhesive being fiberized.
Jones discloses a roofing adhesive that comprises a polymer, asphalt and reinforcing fibers (abs) to adhesive the two layers together such as a reinforcement member to a nail zone (claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bailey and either used the adhesive composition of Jones or added reinforcing fibers to the adhesive as it would increasing the bonding strength and provide processing advantages (paragraph 19). Further it would have been obvious to have the adhesive be in an intermittent pattern along the substrate as a self-seal adhesive, with a first and second thickness along the roofing substate. Bailey discloses that the adhesive can be controlled to vary the spray pattern including coverage rates and thickness, pattern and other aspects. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have a first and second thickness in a first and second location to create a different coverage thickness as it overlaps in scope of Bailey.
As to claims 16- 19, Bailey discloses a roofing material, wherein an adhesive is applied to the roofing material in a spray pattern through a nozzle. The nozzle may be configured to be sprayed at several angles coverages to form different patterns/textures and coverages (paragraph 82). The system comprises one or more rollers for conveying the substrate wherein an adhesive is sprayed through a nozzle. The nozzle can be controlled by a separate system (drive system) and that the spray pattern can be nozzle spray pattern can be sweep back and forth across the application area (paragraph 85). However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the pattern and the movement of the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a drive system move the nozzle in a second direction across the roofing substrate material and forming the adhesive in a circular or helical pattern as it overlaps in scope of Bailey. Bailey teaches having a nozzle that sprays adhesive in patterns on the roofing and making a circular or helical pattern would be a suitable design choice of the pattern. Further having the drive system move the nozzle in a second direction across the substrate is also implied with the teaching of having a system to control the nozzles and having the nozzles move back and forth across the application area to control the design and pattern. See MPEP 2144.06. Lastly, Bailey discloses that the adhesive can be controlled to vary the spray pattern including coverage rates and thickness, pattern and other aspects. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have a first and second thickness in a first and second location to create a different coverage thickness as it overlaps in scope of Bailey.
Jones discloses a roofing adhesive that comprises a polymer, asphalt and reinforcing fibers (abs) to adhesive the two layers together such as a reinforcement member to a nail zone (claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bailey and either used the adhesive composition of Jones or added reinforcing fibers to the adhesive as it would increasing the bonding strength and provide processing advantages (paragraph 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights