DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 14 and 16-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 17, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 18-20 in the reply filed on April 17 is acknowledged.
Applicant has elected basketweave (claim 14) for the purpose of responding to the restriction, but has requested the election of amended claim 15 for the new species of “plain weave” instead. This has been entered and claim 15 is now withdrawn.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "moisture vapor layer" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In efforts to further the prosecution the limitation will be interpreted as “barrier layer.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2019/0344542 to Seth in view of USPN. 4,975,469 to Jacoby.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 18
Seth teaches a burn resistant barrier comprising an exterior surface, an interior surface configured for application to an exterior wall or building (house wrap), a woven fabric of composite tapes wherein the tapes comprise an olefin polymer film and a metal foil such as aluminum foil attached to the polymer film and a barrier layer (backside coating) such as a solid polymer layer (Seth, abstract, paragraph [0015], [0018], [0021], [0030], [0031], [0036] and [0044]). Seth teaches that the composite may comprise an adhesive layer attached to the barrier layer forming the interior surface, and wherein the barrier layer is configured between the adhesive and the woven fabric (Id.). Seth teaches that the aluminum foil may have a thickness of between 5 and 15 microns which overlaps the claimed range of less than 25 microns (Id.). Seth teaches that the tapes may comprise a width of between 1 and 7mm which overlaps the claimed range of no more than 5mm (Id.).
Seth does not teach that the polyolefin tapes are specifically uniaxially oriented. However, Jacoby teaches oriented polypropylene films which may be uniaxially stretched, resulting in improved strength relative to unstretched films (Jacoby, abstract, column 3, line 61- column 4, line 15, column 9, lines 7-21). Jacoby teaches that said films are useful as house wrap and membrane materials (Id., column 10, lines 45-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite structure of Seth and to include as the polyolefin film, the oriented polymer film of Jacoby, motivated by the desire to form a conventional polyolefin film having improved strength.
Regarding the barrier layer being water resistant, wherein liquid water will not pass through the barrier composite for 5 minutes with a 25mm water column, and being air impenetrable, having a MVTR of at least 3 perm, although the prior art does not disclose the water or air resistance of the layer, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Seth reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention (Seth, paragraph [0034], [0035], [0044], see also Applicant’s specification paragraph [0012]). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding the orientation direction being in the longitudinal direction of the tapes. It would have been obvious to cut the film wherein the stretching direction is the longitudinal direction of the resulting tapes, motivated by the desire to improve the strength of the tapes in the length direction. Furthermore, there exists only two possible orientations for the tape relative to the orientation direction. It would have been obvious to try cutting the tapes along the stretch orientation direction since it involves merely choosing form a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 4
Regarding the modulus of the oriented film being two time or more that of the polymer film that is a non-tensilized polymer film. although the prior art does not disclose the modulus of the film, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention (polyolefin which is uniaxially stretched at a stretch ratio of about 2 to 6). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth in view of Jacoby as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13 and 18 above, in view of USPN. 9,040,143 to Groft.
Regarding Claim 10
The prior art combination does not appear to teach that the metal foil is necessarily configured on the exterior surface of the composite. However, Groft teaches a composite house wrap which comprises a reflective metal foil as the exterior layer which provides low emittance and improving thermal performance (Groft, abstract, column 1, lines 43-59, column 3, lines 30-42, column 4, line 66-column 5, line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination and configure the metal foil to be on the exterior surface of the composite, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite building material having improved thermal performance and low emittance.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth in view of Jacoby as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13 and 18 above, in view of US Pub No. 2006/0281379 to Haas.
The prior art combination does not specify the type of weave pattern utilized in the composite. However, Haas teaches a composite for underlayment or housewrap including a woven fabric of olefin tapes, which are woven utilizing a plain weave (Haas, abstract, paragraph [0001], [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the composite of the prior art combination, and to use the specific plain weave, as taught by Haas, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite fabric structure comprising a weave type which is known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in home construction material applications.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth in view of Jacoby as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-13 and 18 above, in view of US Pub No. 5,826,390 to Sacks.
Regarding Claims 19-20
The prior art combination does not appear to teach “stand-offs” extending from the exterior surface. However, Sacks teaches a membrane for use on an exterior wall of a building which includes spacers (standoff) which permits the escape of trapped moisture (Sacks, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination and to include the stand-offs of Sacks, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite building material having improved moisture management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights