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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm (US Patent 4,019,304).
Timm discloses a method of temporarily water-proofing a building comprising applying a continuous strip of double-sided waterproof tape 12 around building 10. The tape is sealed to the building by the adhesive and flexible sheeting 18 is adhered to the tape to protect the building.
Timm does not disclose the timeframes (i.e. 5 days, 14 days and 3 days) as claimed by the applicant. However, it is the examiner’s position that floods typically recede after hours or days and given that Timm described the water-proofing as “temporary”, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to remove the temporary tape within 3 or 5 days and not leave undesirable deposits within 14 days.
In addition, when taping large structures such as buildings, it is the examiner’s position that repositioning such tape may be necessary to ensure proper placement to protect the structure.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm (US Patent 4,019,304) in view of Dai et al (US Patent 8,974,904).
Timm does not disclose the nano tape as claimed by the applicant. Regarding this difference, the applicant is directed to the reference of Dai.
Dai discloses a nanocomposite adhesive which incorporates carbon nanotubes (i.e. nano tape or gecko tape or alien tape). This adhesive exhibits high adhesive strength and shear adhesion strength (see col. 2, lines 6-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ nano tape, as taught by Dai, in the method of Timm in order to provide the predictable result of imparting such high adhesive strength and shear adhesion strength to the temporary waterproofing method. In addition, it is the examiner’s position that a thickness of 1-3 mm is a conventional and reasonable thickness for a waterproofing tape and would have been obvious to employ as the thickness of the double-sided tape in order to provide the predictable result of imparting desired strength to the waterproofing system.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm (US Patent 4,019,304) in view of Dai et al (US Patent 8,974,904) in further view of Seabaugh et al (US 2021/0207005).
Timm in view of Dai does not disclose the backing as claimed by the applicant. Regarding this difference, the applicant is directed to the reference of Seabaugh.
Seabaugh discloses a water barrier tape in the form of a roll which employs a liner or backing 25 which prevents the adhesive 12 from adhering to the tape when in roll form (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a backing layer, as taught by Seabaugh, for the double-sided tape of Timm in order to provide the predictable result of preventing the adhesive from adhering to itself when in roll form.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the IDS filed 10/11/2023 is blank and does not contain any references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
JAMES D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745