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 .
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth et al.(US Publication 2005/0196590) in view of Hoerner et al.(US Patent 4,824,506), Muller et al.(EP 2027988A1), and GCPat.com(gcpat.com/en/solutions/products/preprufe-comprehensive-waterproofing-system/preprufe-250-membrane-data-sheet)
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 16, and 17, Seth et al. discloses a method of making a moisture barrier comprising thermoforming a thermoplastic sheet to a given shape, coating it with an adhesive, and applying a liner to the adhesive.([0024]-[0025];[0043]) The reference does not disclose the specifics of the thermoforming, though it is clear that that different size structures are intended to be covered by the shaped barrier.([0006]-[0007]) Hoerner et al. discloses that in thermoforming, the sheet is shaped by inserting a die into a heated sheet so it forms to the die shape.(Figure 3A-3C) Hoerner et al. does not disclose how the die is formed. Muller et al. discloses it is known to custom make articles by obtaining three-dimensional data based on a desired structure, converting it into coordinate data, and creating a thermoforming die based on the three-dimensional data.([0051]-[0056]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to make a shaped moisture barrier by inserting a die into a sheet and shaping it to the die since this is a well-known and conventional method of thermoforming as taught by Hoerner et al.(Figure 3A-3C) and to make the die for the thermoforming by determining a three-dimensional shape to cover the area desired to be protected and making a thermoforming die to that shape since Muller et al. teaches making a custom thermoforming die based on obtaining data for a three-dimensional structure and forming a thermoforming die allows formation of custom elements.(Abstract)
The references cited do not disclose the water vapor transmission rate of the moisture barrier. However, one in the art would expect it to be similar to that of the waterproofing membranes used in the prior art of Seth et al. such as Preprufe.[0007] GCPat.com teaches a data sheet for a Preprufe membrane and it discloses a water vapor transmission rate of 0.01 Perms(g/ft.hour.in Hg which is, with 1 Perm being about 57g/m2.day, a rate of 0.00000057 g/mm2.day of the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the membrane of Seth et al., Hoerner et al., and Muller et al. to have a water vapor transmission rate of less than 0.00006355 since the membrane of Seth et la. was intended to replace the known Preprufe and thus would be expected to have similar properties since it was intended to be used in similar locations for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 18, Hoerner et al. discloses it is known in general in thermoforming to use vacuum to pull the sheet onto the die and it would have been obvious for this reason.(Col. 1, ll. 60-64)
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 19, Hoerner et al. discloses it is known in general in thermoforming to cool the sheet after thermoforming and it would have been obvious for this reason.(Claim 1) While it does not explicitly state the cooling is to below the temperature at which the material is thermoformable, the purpose of cooling the sheet is to remove it from the die without it losing its shape, i.e. after it is below thermoforming temperature.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 20, Seth et al. disclose applying the adhesive and liner before thermoforming.[0030]
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Seth et al. discloses the adhesive can be a hot melt.[0034]
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the references do not disclose the specific thicknesses of the layers. However a determination of the thicknesses of the layers is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth et al., Hoerner et al., Muller et al., and GCPat.com as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Muta et al.(US Publication 2013/0052461).
The references cited above do not disclose the adhesive containing a flame retardant. Muta et al. discloses a moisture barrier for similar applications as Seth et al., i.e. to protect elements on the floor of a building from material applied on top of them which contains a flame retardant in the adhesive.[0007] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include a flame retardant in the adhesive of Seth et al., Hoerner et al., and Muller et al. since Muta et al. is directed to a similar structure and indicates the adhesive includes a flame retardant[0007] and since building materials are often required to include flame retardants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the references do not disclose the claimed water vapor transmission rate, Seth et al. suggests the invention was a replacement for Preprufe and other such material, leading one to expect the would have the same type of properties if the invention was not directed to the properties, and GCPat.com teaches that Preprufe has a water vapor transmission rate of considerately less than the claimed rate.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Seth et al. is directed to a sheet orders of magnitude larger than the thickness in the claims, 10 mils(the lower end of the taught range) is 0.254 mm, which is right in the middle of applicant’s claimed range. The entire range does not need to be taught, only a point that meets the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights