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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6 are 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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudge et al. (US Pat, 5,030,507) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Mudge et al. teach a composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent (defoamer) and water [3:19-52; 4:16-21; 5:33-45; 5:62-66; 6:22-26].
Mudge et al. is silent regarding the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Mudge et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the polyester fiber is present in the claimed range [Examples including Example III and 7:3-7].
Regarding claim 3, it is clear the at least one acrylic emulsion is present in the claimed amount by weight of the binder mix given Mudge et al. teach the fire retardant and defoaming agent maybe present and clearly are present in minor amounts compared to the acrylic emulsion which is present in an amount of 100 parts by weight. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount of the at least one acrylic emulsion based on the teachings of Mudge et al and given the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to add small amounts of defoamer and fire retardant to be effective and yet cost efficient as is known in the art. Mudge et al. teach acrylic emulsion can contain alkyl phenyl ethoxylate in the examples, but is in no way limited to such. Mudge et al. is relied upon for all that is taught and teaches any nonionic or anionic surfactant can be used which would include where the emulsion is free of alkyl phenyl ethoxylates and motivation would exist to do so in order to be environmentally sensitive because alkyl phenol ethoxylates are not good for the environment. Therefore, the claimed acrylic emulsion of Mudge et al. is free of alky phenyl ethoxylates and further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to be environmentally sensitive because alkyl phenol ethoxylates are not good for the environment and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Mudge et al. teach the binder further comprises a pigment.
Regarding claim 10, Mudge et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [Title].
Regarding claim 11, Mudge et al. teach the composition is free of a terpolymer of vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate and ethylene as Mudge et al. does not teach such a terpolymer.
Regarding claim 7, Mudge et al. teach the water is present and can be added in the desired amount and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any amount, including that presently claimed amount in order to affect the binder properties such viscosity and strength.
Regarding claim 9, Mudge et al. are silent regarding the claimed amount of pigment. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use any amount including that presently claimed as adjusting the amounts of pigment are well within the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in order to affect the level of coloring and cost as is evidenced by PG Pub. 2013/0046055.
Claims 12-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polumbus et al. (US Pat. 9,334,655) in view of Mudge et al. (US Pat, 5,030,507) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 12-17, Polumbus et al. teach a roofing strip 62 comprising a roofing composition with roofing composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder. The roofing strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface. Polumbus et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Mudge et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds [3:19-52; 4:16-21; 5:33-45; 5:62-66; 6:22-26]. Mudge et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [Title]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Mudge et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in the previous combination because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21-22, Polumbus et al. teach a roofing strip comprising a base defining a plurality of recesses along the length of the strip with each recess separated from another recess by a section of the base and each recess extending across a full width of the strip and an air permeable material received in the plurality of recesses defined in the base [claim 1]. The strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface. Polumbus et a. teach the air permeable material comprises at least on polyester fiber and a binder. The air permeable material is formed as a plurality of discontinuous sections, each section received in one of the plurality of recesses defined in the base [claim 1]. The air permeable material traverses a surface of the section of the base separating each recess [Figures]. Polumbus et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Mudge et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds [3:19-52; 4:16-21; 5:33-45; 5:62-66; 6:22-26]. Mudge et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [Title]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Mudge et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in the previous combination because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23-24, ‘433 teach a method of installing a roofing strip comprising applying a strip to a major roof panel, attaching a minor roof panel to the major roof panel such that the strip is positioned between the minor and major roof panels [0027]. ‘433 teach the strip comprising at least one material comprising polyester fiber and binder. ‘433 is silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Mudge et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds [3:19-52; 4:16-21; 5:33-45; 5:62-66; 6:22-26]. Mudge et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [Title]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Mudge et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds and arrive at the claimed invention. Given the cited art teaches the method of installation presently claimed, it is clear the method results in the estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde. Further, the present specification teaches the claimed method of installation results in the estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde therefore it is clear the claimed estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde is inherent to the method of installation of the previous combination.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in the previous combination because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. (4,689,264) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Fink et al. teach a composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water [Abstract, 3:29-56; 4:9-11; 4:27-45]. The at least one surfactant is present in the claimed amount [4:27-45].
Fink is silent regarding the specifics of the acrylic emulsion. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Fink et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the polyester fiber is present in the claimed range [4:9-11].
Regarding claim 3, the at least one acrylic emulsion is present in the claimed amount by weight of the binder mix [4:27-45].
Fink et al. teach acrylic emulsion can contain alkyl phenyl ethoxylate in the examples, but is in no way limited to such. Fink et al. is relied upon for all that is taught and teaches any nonionic or anionic surfactant can be used which would include where the emulsion is free of alkyl phenyl ethoxylates and motivation would exist to do so in order to be environmentally sensitive because alkyl phenol ethoxylates are not good for the environment. Therefore, the claimed acrylic emulsion of Fink et al. is free of alky phenyl ethoxylates and further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to be environmentally sensitive because alkyl phenol ethoxylates are not good for the environment and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the water is present in the claimed amount by weight of the binder mix [3:56-58].
Regarding claim 10, Fink et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [1:8-13].
Regarding claim 11, Fink et al. teach the composition is free of a terpolymer of vinyl chloride, vinyl acetate and ethylene as Fink et al. does not teach such a terpolymer.
Regarding claim 8, Fink et al. teach dye is included, but is silent regarding pigments. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pigments as it is well known in the art and a known alternative equivalent.
Regarding claim 9, Fink et al. are silent regarding the claimed amount of pigment. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use any amount including that presently claimed as adjusting the amounts of pigment are well within the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in order to affect the level of coloring and cost as is evidenced by PG Pub. 2013/0046055.
Claims 12-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polumbus et al. (US Pat. 9,334,655) in view of Fink et al. (4,689,264) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 12-17, Polumbus et al. teach a roofing strip 62 comprising a roofing composition with roofing composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder. The roofing strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface. Polumbus et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Fink et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder [Abstract, 3:29-56; 4:9-11; 4:27-45]. Fink et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [1:8-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Fink et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the specifics of the acrylic emulsion. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Fink et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21-22, Polumbus et al. teach a roofing strip comprising a base defining a plurality of recesses along the length of the strip with each recess separated from another recess by a section of the base and each recess extending across a full width of the strip and an air permeable material received in the plurality of recesses defined in the base [claim 1]. The strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface. Polumbus et a. teach the air permeable material comprises at least on polyester fiber and a binder. The air permeable material is formed as a plurality of discontinuous sections, each section received in one of the plurality of recesses defined in the base [claim 1]. The air permeable material traverses a surface of the section of the base separating each recess [Figures]. Polumbus et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Fink et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder [Abstract, 3:29-56; 4:9-11; 4:27-45]. Fink et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [1:8-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Fink et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the specifics of the acrylic emulsion. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Fink et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23-24, ‘433 teach a method of installing a roofing strip comprising applying a strip to a major roof panel, attaching a minor roof panel to the major roof panel such that the strip is positioned between the minor and major roof panels [0027]. ‘433 teach the strip comprising at least one material comprising polyester fiber and binder. ‘433 is silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Fink et al. teach a binder composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder [Abstract, 3:29-56; 4:9-11; 4:27-45]. Fink et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [1:8-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Fink et al. in ‘433 in order to form a formaldehyde free binder and arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the cited art teaches the method of installation presently claimed, it is clear the method results in the estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde. Further, the present specification teaches the claimed method of installation results in the estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde therefore it is clear the claimed estimated daily total intake amount of formaldehyde is inherent to the method of installation of the previous combination.
The previous combination is silent regarding the specifics of the acrylic emulsion. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Fink et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotter et al. (6,662,510) in view of Fink et al. (4,689,264) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Rotter et al. teach a roofing strip comprising a base defining a plurality of recesses along the length of the strip with each recess separated from another recess by a section of the base and each recess extending across a full width of the strip and an air permeable material received in the plurality of recesses defined in the base [Figures]. The strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface [Figures]. Rotter et al. teach the air permeable material comprises at least on polyester fiber and a binder. The air permeable material forms a continuous strip form one recess to another [Figures]. Rotter et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Fink et al. teach polyester fiber and a binder mix composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder [Abstract, 3:29-56; 4:9-11; 4:27-45]. Fink et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [1:8-13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Fink et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the specifics of the acrylic emulsion. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in Fink et al. because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Fink et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotter et al. (6,662,510) in view of Fink et al. (Mudge et al. (US Pat, 5,030,507) in view of Vafa et al. (US Pat. 5,235,016) in view of Ellis et al. (US Pat. 6,362,353).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Rotter et al. teach a roofing strip comprising a base defining a plurality of recesses along the length of the strip with each recess separated from another recess by a section of the base and each recess extending across a full width of the strip and an air permeable material received in the plurality of recesses defined in the base [Figures]. The strip comprises a first side having a flat and planar surface and a second side opposite the first side with the second side having a flat and planar surface. The second side is configured to engage an uneven roof and has a variable profile complimentary to an uneven roof surface [Figures]. Rotter et al. teach the air permeable material comprises at least on polyester fiber and a binder. The air permeable material forms a continuous strip form one recess to another [Figures]. Rotter et al. are silent regarding the claimed binder mix. However, Mudge et al. teach polyester fiber and a binder mix composition comprising at least one polyester fiber and a binder mix comprising at least one acrylic emulsion, at least one fire retardant, at least one surfactant, at least one defoaming agent and water in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds [3:19-52; 4:16-21; 5:33-45; 5:62-66; 6:22-26]. Mudge et al. teach the composition includes the claimed amount of formaldehyde [Title]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binder composition of Mudge et al. in Polumbus et al. in order to form a formaldehyde free binder with strong bonds and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the self crosslinking acrylic emulsion of Vafa et al. in the previous combination because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teaches crosslinking resins or agents can be present. However, given the teachings of Vafa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to exclude any crosslinking resins or agents given the teachings of self crosslinking emulsion to avoid processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Mudge et al. teach the surfactant is present in the claimed amount [Examples].
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the surfactant. However, Ellis et al. teaches nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids as a method of making a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties. The surfactant contains long chain polyoxyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonionic surfactant derived from neutrally charged long chain fatty acids of Ellis et al. in the previous combination as a method of producing a surfactant that has improved properties, purity and color properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2013/0046055 teaches a process of making an aqueous binder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mudge and Fink do not teach the claimed acrylic emulsion being a self-crosslinking binder. However, Vafa et al. teaches a self crosslinking acrylic emulsion because it provides a crosslinking functionality without separate crosslinking agents avoiding processing complexity and poor shelf stability. Therefore, newly cited art teaches the amended limitations.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789