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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 10/16/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-26, 30, 31, 35, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al (US 2016/0222665 A1) in view of Smith et al (US 2009/0317593 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, 30, 31, and 38, Belt suggests a roofing shingle (i.e., a roofing material) comprising a front surface; a back surface; and nail zone or reinforcement material (i.e., a sealant attachment zone) disposed on at least the front surface of the roofing material; wherein the sealant attachment zone comprises mineral particles (e.g., sand, i.e., quartz) and polymeric particles (e.g., rubber particles or polymer pellets) (i.e., surfacing media); wherein the surfacing media are disposed on at least the front surface of the roofing material; wherein the surfacing media are exposed on the surface of the roofing material (i.e., provides a demarcation and color for the nail zone) (para 35, 44-45; figs 1, 2, 4).
Belt fails to suggest wherein the sealant attachment zone has an average surface coverage of the surfacing media of 30% to 70% and 40% to 60%. However, Belt teaches:
[0035] In another embodiment of the invention, another material, such as a granular material. Granular materials may include minerals like talc, sand, or preferably a lightweight material such as expanded shale, which may be applied to the first asphalt coated sheet… in place of as the reinforcement material, or may comprise another granular material, such as waste materials like ground glass or rubber particles, or may comprise polymer pellets, or other materials. Although such a material may have little or no reinforcing attributes, for the purposes of this application, shall be considered as a “reinforcing material” which provides a demarcation for the nail zone and preferably provides a thinner cross section and/or improved adhesion on a roof. Such a material may be nearly any material which is applied by any desired means to an upper surface of the first asphalt coated sheet to achieve the desired properties. In one embodiment, the material may be applied to the portion of the first asphalt coated sheet that will become the portion of the overlay sheet shown covered by the tape (and in lieu of the tape previously described). Such a material may preferably reduce tackiness of the portions of the second asphalt coated sheet to which the material has been applied, and thereby provide a surface to which granules substantially will not adhere and/or which creates a visible line in the overlay illustrated by the nail zone. Preferably such a material provides a thinner cross section than the granules, preferably also reduces weight versus the granules, preferably adheres to the sealant better than the granules, and is preferably of a different color or shade than the granules to indicate the nail zone.
So Belt teaches that the granular materials (i.e., protective fines, dust, and/or surfacing media) could provide reinforcing properties, provides a thinner cross section and demarcation for the nail zone, and/or improves adhesion on a roof and/or are used to adjust the tack on the front of an asphalt shingle.
Smith teaches roofing materials (e.g., shingles) wherein the roofing material is coated with solid material such as, but not limited to, granules to provide texture, color and/or improved durability; wherein the solid material is adhered to the roofing system by the use of an adhesive such as bitumen or asphalt; and the solid material can be at least partially pressed onto the surface of the roofing material to enhance the adhesion of the solid material to the roofing system (para 10,14,18). Smith further teaches solid material that is applied to the roofing system can be the same type of solid material, or can be a mixture of different types, textures, shapes, and/or colors of solid material such as granular material or other solid material such as, but not limited to, broken or crushed glass, graphite, polymer material (e.g., polymer balls, plastic beads, etc.), sand, metal (e.g., metal flakes, metal balls, etc.) (para 17).
Therefore, per the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention adjust the amount of surface coverage of the solid material or surfacing media in the combination with Belt to optimize the tackiness of the nail zone or reinforcement material as well as other surface properties such as durability, color, and surface texture.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Smith suggests particles having sizes between 12 and 50 US Mesh (para 49). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. 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 Smith, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26, Smith teaches particles as low as US 50 Mesh (~ 300 microns) (para 49); but further suggests the composition, size, layer thickness, and/or physical properties of the granules are selected to meet the desired end use of the roofing system (para 64); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the composition, size, and layer thickness of the particles or granules per the desired end use of the roofing shingle and its required tackiness in the nail zone or reinforcement material as well as other surface properties such as durability, color, and surface texture.
Regarding claim 35 and 36, Belt teaches roofing shingles comprise a substrate such as a non-woven web of glass fibers (i.e, wherein the surfacing media is on the substrate) (para 16).
Claims 27-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Smith as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Liang et al (US 5,719,215).
Belt as modified by Smith suggests the roofing material of claim 21.
Belt as modified by Smith fails to suggest wherein the polymeric particles comprise particles having a polar functional group that is selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, a carboxyl, a phenolic, an amine, a thiol, and combinations thereof; wherein the surfacing media further comprise at least one of a tackifier, an encapsulated adhesion promoter, a magnetic powder, or combinations thereof; wherein the surfacing media further comprise ferrous metal powder; and wherein the surfacing media comprise nickel, copper, iron, titanium, zinc, and combinations thereof.
Liang teaches a procedure for at least partial dissociation of crumb rubber vulcanate network, including automobile tires, and for the incorporation of this treated rubber into stable bitumen compositions for use in such applications as roofing shingles and/or sealants; wherein such compositions may also include fillers such as silica or clay (abstract, col 6, lines 43-59, col 7, lines 29-44). Liang suggests the use of ground whole tires (col 3, lines 34-43) which would have suggested that of a ground steel-belt radial tire (i.e., containing ferrous metal powder and/or iron) to the skilled artisan. Liang further teaches the use of hydrocarbon oil and liquid rubber (i.e., tackifiers) that can serve to compatibilize bitumen with the ground rubber and also tends to penetrate the oil swollen crumb rubber and facilitate its mixing into the asphalt; wherein functionalized liquid rubber is used, and the functional group may be an amine (i.e., wherein the polymeric particles comprise particles having a polar functional group that is an amine) (col 3, line 52-col 4, line 49; col 5, lines 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the composition of Liang with the roofing shingle of Belt as modified by Smith in order to scrap automotive tires. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the crumb rubber asphalt composition of Liang for the asphalt composition of Belt as modified by Smith, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Smith as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Franzen et al (US 2014/0014000 A1).
Belt as modified by Smith suggests the roofing material of claim 21.
Belt as modified by Smith fails to suggest wherein the surfacing media comprise recycled asphalt.
Franzen teaches asphalt products (e.g., shingles) made from recycled asphalt; wherein the asphalt made may comprise fillers such as calcium carbonate, dolomite, and/or talc; wherein roofing products such as asphalt coated plies (i.e., shingles) are provided with cost benefits and product benefits such as fire performance and higher filler loadings (abstract, para 20-21, 32, 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the asphalt composition of Franzen with the roofing shingle of Belt as modified by Smith in order to have shingles provided with cost benefits and product benefits such as fire performance and higher filler loadings. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the asphalt composition of Franzen for that of Belt as modified by Smith, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Smith as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Rasmussen et al (US 2011/0271616 A1).
Belt as modified by Smith suggests the roofing material of claim 35.
Belt as modified by Smith fails to suggest wherein the substate comprises nano-fibrillated cellulose fibers.
Rasmussen teaches nanofibrillated cellulose acts as a strengthening agent in resin compositions that may be applied to non-woven mats to form composites that are used in final products such as roofing shingles; wherein the final products are environmentally friendly (para 10, 33, 41, 44, 78, 80, 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the non-woven mat composite of Rasmussen with the substrate of Belt as modified by Smith in order to have shingles that are environmentally friendly. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the non-woven mat composite of Rasmussen for that of Belt as modified by Smith, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 21-26, 30, 31, 35, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al (US 2016/0222665 A1) in view of Shiao et al (US 2008/0248242 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, 30, 31, and 38, Belt suggests a roofing shingle (i.e., a roofing material) comprising a front surface; a back surface; and nail zone or reinforcement material (i.e., a sealant attachment zone) disposed on at least the front surface of the roofing material; wherein the sealant attachment zone comprises mineral particles (e.g., sand, i.e., quartz) and polymeric particles (e.g., rubber particles or polymer pellets); wherein the surfacing media are disposed on at least the front surface of the roofing material; wherein the surfacing media are exposed on the surface of the roofing material (i.e., provides a demarcation and color for the nail zone) (para 35, 44-45; figs 1, 2, 4).
Belt fails to suggest wherein the sealant attachment zone has an average surface coverage of the surfacing media of 30% to 70% and 40% to 60%. However, Belt teaches:
[0035] In another embodiment of the invention, another material, such as a granular material. Granular materials may include minerals like talc, sand, or preferably a lightweight material such as expanded shale, which may be applied to the first asphalt coated sheet… in place of as the reinforcement material, or may comprise another granular material, such as waste materials like ground glass or rubber particles, or may comprise polymer pellets, or other materials. Although such a material may have little or no reinforcing attributes, for the purposes of this application, shall be considered as a “reinforcing material” which provides a demarcation for the nail zone and preferably provides a thinner cross section and/or improved adhesion on a roof. Such a material may be nearly any material which is applied by any desired means to an upper surface of the first asphalt coated sheet to achieve the desired properties. In one embodiment, the material may be applied to the portion of the first asphalt coated sheet that will become the portion of the overlay sheet shown covered by the tape (and in lieu of the tape previously described). Such a material may preferably reduce tackiness of the portions of the second asphalt coated sheet to which the material has been applied, and thereby provide a surface to which granules substantially will not adhere and/or which creates a visible line in the overlay illustrated by the nail zone. Preferably such a material provides a thinner cross section than the granules, preferably also reduces weight versus the granules, preferably adheres to the sealant better than the granules, and is preferably of a different color or shade than the granules to indicate the nail zone.
So Belt reinforces the notion that granular materials (i.e., protective fines, dust, and/or surfacing media) are used to adjust the tack on the front of an asphalt shingle.
Shiao teaches roofing products such as shingles; wherein surfacing media, such as inert mineral granules, fine sands, talc, limestone powder, calcium carbonate powder, or finely crushed rock powders, are typically used in roofing products to provide a tack-free surface for web-style manufacturing process, or the ability for packaging and storage; wherein types of surfacing media, such as traditional roofing granules, can also provide UV protection to the covered asphalt binder and add aesthetic values to the end products; and with the proper size and surface coverage of the roofing granules, it is reported that additional fire protection of the end products can be achieved (para 8). Shiao further teaches rough surfaces (i.e., a texture) is created by the surfacing media or granules (para 8)
Therefore, per the teachings of Shiao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention adjust the amount of surface coverage of the surfacing media in the combination with Belt to optimize the tackiness of the nail zone or reinforcement material as well as other surface properties such aesthetics and roughness or texture.
Regarding claims 24-26, Shiao teaches surfacing media particles having a size from US mesh #8 to US mesh #325 (~2.4 mm to 44 µm). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. 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 Shiao, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 35 and 36, Belt teaches roofing shingles comprise a substrate such as a non-woven web of glass fibers (i.e, wherein the surfacing media is on the substrate) (para 16).
Claims 27-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Shiao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Liang et al (US 5,719,215).
Belt as modified by Shiao suggests the roofing material of claim 21.
Belt as modified by Shiao fails to suggest wherein the polymeric particles comprise particles having a polar functional group that is selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, a carboxyl, a phenolic, an amine, a thiol, and combinations thereof; wherein the surfacing media further comprise at least one of a tackifier, an encapsulated adhesion promoter, a magnetic powder, or combinations thereof; wherein the surfacing media further comprise ferrous metal powder; and wherein the surfacing media comprise nickel, copper, iron, titanium, zinc, and combinations thereof.
Liang teaches a procedure for at least partial dissociation of crumb rubber vulcanate network, including automobile tires, and for the incorporation of this treated rubber into stable bitumen compositions for use in such applications as roofing shingles and/or sealants; wherein such compositions may also include fillers such as silica or clay (abstract, col 6, lines 43-59, col 7, lines 29-44). Liang suggests the use of ground whole tires (col 3, lines 34-43) which would have suggested that of a ground steel-belt radial tire (i.e., containing ferrous metal powder and/or iron) to the skilled artisan. Liang further teaches the use of hydrocarbon oil and liquid rubber (i.e., tackifiers) that can serve to compatibilize bitumen with the ground rubber and also tends to penetrate the oil swollen crumb rubber and facilitate its mixing into the asphalt; wherein functionalized liquid rubber is used, and the functional group may be an amine (i.e., wherein the polymeric particles comprise particles having a polar functional group that is an amine) (col 3, line 52-col 4, line 49; col 5, lines 1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the composition of Liang with the roofing shingle of Belt as modified by Shiao in order to scrap automotive tires. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the crumb rubber asphalt composition of Liang for the asphalt composition of Belt as modified by Shiao, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Shiao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Franzen et al (US 2014/0014000 A1).
Belt as modified by Shiao suggests the roofing material of claim 21.
Belt as modified by Shiao fails to suggest wherein the surfacing media comprise recycled asphalt.
Franzen teaches asphalt products (e.g., shingles) made from recycled asphalt; wherein the asphalt made may comprise fillers such as calcium carbonate, dolomite, and/or talc; wherein roofing products such as asphalt coated plies (i.e., shingles) are provided with cost benefits and product benefits such as fire performance and higher filler loadings (abstract, para 20-21, 32, 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the asphalt composition of Franzen with the roofing shingle of Belt as modified by Shiao in order to have shingles provided with cost benefits and product benefits such as fire performance and higher filler loadings. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the asphalt composition of Franzen for that of Belt as modified by Shiao, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt and Shiao as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Rasmussen et al (US 2011/0271616 A1).
Belt as modified by Shiao suggests the roofing material of claim 35.
Belt as modified by Shiao fails to suggest wherein the substate comprises nano-fibrillated cellulose fibers.
Rasmussen teaches nanofibrillated cellulose acts as a strengthening agent in resin compositions that may be applied to non-woven mats to form composites that are used in final products such as roofing shingles; wherein the final products are environmentally friendly (para 10, 33, 41, 44, 78, 80, 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the non-woven mat composite of Rasmussen with the substrate of Belt as modified by Shiao in order to have shingles that are environmentally friendly. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the non-woven mat composite of Rasmussen for that of Belt as modified by Shiao, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a new combinations of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783