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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claim 27 from Species Group A and Claim 37 from Species B in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 states “comprising one waterproof plastic sheet and of one base layer which is coupled to it on the lower side…” in lines 1-2 and should read “comprising one waterproof plastic sheet and the plastic sheet on the lower side…”
Claim 30 states “said plastic sheet, having thickness of between…” in lines 2-3 and should read “said plastic sheet, having a thickness of between…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 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.
The term “thin” in claim 22 (Line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term thin refers to the thickness of the extruded plastic material of claim 22 and fails to provide a range or a parameter for the thickness of the material used for the waterproof plastic sheet. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention.
The term “long open time” in claim 22 (Line 15) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long open time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term long open time refers to a specific property for the glues of the adhesive curbs and the term fails to provide a specific range or parameter for the property of the glues. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22-25, 27, 29-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faotto (US 2018/0223543) in view of Bell et al. (GP 2,457,132) and Wang (US 8,476,359).
Regarding claim 22, Faotto teaches heating systems placed in subfloors which comprises a sheet made of polymeric material including a plurality of reliefs or bosses which are equally spaced apart, a connection layer, and a main insulation layer (“a studded membrane for underfloor heating, comprising one waterproof plastic sheet and of one base layer which is coupled to it on the lower side for anchoring the membrane on a laying surface”) (Paragraphs [0001]; [0030]-[0034]; Fig. 1-2). The bosses are considered to be equivalent to the studs of the instant claim and, as noted above, are equally spaced apart (“wherein said sheet is made up of a thin extruded plastic material and comprises studs protruding upwardly form the membrane-plane and are arranged in a matrix with regular center to center distance”). The bosses provide spaces in the forms of rows and columns in order to house an electric heating wire (“in such a way to obtain hollow and continuous spaces among them in the form of corridors”) (Paragraph [0037; Figs. 1-2).
Faotto is silent with respect to the sheets comprising retaining adhesive means suitable for retaining at least a heating cable or a pipe, placed among said studs on the top side; wherein said retaining means are adhesive curbs made up of a glue laid in strips exclusively on the membrane - plane, in correspondence with said corridors among the studs acting as laying corridors for said glue; and wherein each adhesive curb has a thickness of between 0.1 mm and 3 mm, and a width which is at the minimum of 0.5 mm and at the most equal to the center to center distance between opposite studs on the sides of its laying corridor; and wherein said studs are thicker than the adhesive curb and located at a useful distance higher than 0.5 mm; and wherein said glue of the adhesive curb is made up of an elastoplastic thermal fuse material of the hot melt type, sensitive to pressure and with a long open time, in such a way to retain in a removable way said heating cable placed in adhesion on it; and wherein said glue of the adhesive curb is made up of a material having a softening point higher than 70°C, and with a Brookfield viscosity greater than 2000 cPs measured at 160°C.
Bell teaches methods and materials for laying electric cables for underfloor heating (Pg. 1, Lines 3-4). The materials include a double-sided adhesive strip which is applied to the flooring in order to adhere the cables (Pg. 1, Lines 16-21; Pg. 2, Lines 19-24; Fig. 1).
Wang teaches a polyolefin hot melt adhesive which is suitable for adhering dissimilar materials (Col. 1, Lines 12-23). The adhesives provide improved cohesion strength, heat resistance and flexibility wherein the adhesives are formed from a composition which has a softening point between 200 and 320°F (93.3 to 160°C) and a Brookfield viscosity of 100 to 500,000 mPa*s (100 to 500,000 cPs) (Col. 4, Line 40-Col. 5, Line 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sheets of Faotto such that the spaces between the bosses which are used to house an electric heating wire are further provided with the double sided adhesives of Bell to mechanically hold the cables wherein the adhesive is formed from the compositions of Wang which are taught to provide improved cohesion strength, heat resistance and flexibility wherein the adhesives are formed from a composition which has a softening point between 200 and 320°F (93.3 to 160°C) and a Brookfield viscosity of 100 to 500,000 mPa*s (100 to 500,000 cPs) (“retaining adhesive means suitable for retaining at least a heating cable or a pipe, placed among said studs on the top side; wherein said retaining means are adhesive curbs made up of a glue laid in strips exclusively on the membrane - plane, in correspondence with said corridors among the studs acting as laying corridors for said glue” & “wherein said glue of the adhesive curb is made up of an elastoplastic thermal fuse material of the hot melt type, sensitive to pressure and with a long open time, in such a way to retain in a removable way said heating cable placed in adhesion on it; and wherein said glue of the adhesive curb is made up of a material having a softening point higher than 70°C, and with a Brookfield viscosity greater than 2000 cPs measured at 160°C” ).
Faotto, Bell and Wang are silent with respect to wherein each adhesive curb has a thickness of between 0.1 mm and 3 mm, and a width which is at the minimum of 0.5 mm and at the most equal to the center-to-center distance between opposite studs on the sides of its laying corridor; and wherein said studs are thicker than the adhesive curb and located at a useful distance higher than 0.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to optimize the ----dimensions of the double-sided adhesives of Bell utilized in the underfloor heating systems taught by Faotto as the invention is directed to methods and materials for adhering heating cables of an underfloor heating system, and the Applicant's invention is also directed towards the same (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0001]-[0013]). As such, the range of the thickness of the adhesives being from 0.1 mm to 3 mm, the width of the adhesives being from 0.5 mm and at the most equal to the center-to-center distance between bosses and the bosses being thicker than the adhesives and having distances of greater than 0.5 mm as claimed is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, because the inventions of Faotto, Bell and Wang are utilized specifically to hold heating cables, the dimensions of the adhesives and the bosses would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 23, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. As discussed above, the adhesives are formed from the polyolefin hot melt-based adhesives.
Regarding claim 24, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. Bell further teaches the adhesives being placed in strips (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 24. Bell further teaches the adhesives being placed in strips (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 24. Bell further teaches the adhesives being placed in parallel strips which would include the strips being rectilinear and present only on longitudinal or transversal layer corridors, as parallel lines (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. Wang further teaches the compositions including a colorant (Col. 5, Lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 30, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. The sheet of polymeric material may be formed from polyethylenes or polypropylenes, may have thicknesses of 50 microns to 2 mm (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]).
Additionally, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to optimize the dimensions of the underfloor heating systems such that Faotto and applicant’s invention are directed to the same field of endeavor. As such, it would have been obvious to form the bosses to have a height of between 3 mm and 25 mm and having the distance between centers among near bosses of between 6 mm and 52 mm.
Regarding claim 31, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. The sheet of polymeric material may be formed from polyethylenes or polypropylenes (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 32, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. The sheet of polymeric material may have thicknesses of 50 microns to 2 mm (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]).
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to optimize the dimensions of the underfloor heating systems such that Faotto and applicant’s invention are directed to the same field of endeavor. As such, it would have been obvious to form the bosses to have a height of between 5 and 10 mm, having the distance between centers among near bosses of between 20 and 32 mm, and the resulting rows between bosses having widths of 4 and 10 mm.
Regarding claims 33, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to optimize the dimensions of the underfloor heating systems with the adhesives such that Faotto in view of Bell and applicant’s invention are directed to the same field of endeavor. As such, it would have been obvious to optimize the widths of the adhesives to be from between 1 mm and the width of the rows between bosses.
Regarding claims 34, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 32.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to optimize the dimensions of the underfloor heating systems with the adhesives such that Faotto in view of Bell and applicant’s invention are directed to the same field of endeavor. As such, it would have been obvious to optimize the widths of the adhesives to be from between 2 mm and 5 mm.
Regarding claim 35, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. As shown in figures 1 and 2, the bosses have truncated cones shapes and are all identical.
Regarding claim 36, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. As shown in figure 1, the bosses include a blind recess (“the studs of said plastic sheet have the head equipped with a central cavity introflexed in the form of a recess suitable for housing an adhesive mortar for floors and/or have regular and flat head”) (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 37, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. Faotto further teaches the connection layer being formed from a non-woven fabric (Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 39, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 22. As discussed above, Faotto teaches a connection layer, being formed from a metal sheet, and the connection layer being located between the sheet of polymeric material and the main insulation layer, which is considered equivalent to the base layer (Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faotto (US 2018/0223543) in view of Bell et al. (GP 2,457,132) and Wang (US 8,476,359) as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Bordin et al. (US 2018/0051893).
Regarding claim 40, Faotto teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 39 which includes a connection layer formed from a metal sheet.
Faotto is silent with respect to the metal sheet being an aluminum sheet.
Bordin teaches underlayments associated with radiant floor or wall heating systems (Paragraph [0002]). The systems include a pad layer which may be formed from a heat reflective material, such as aluminum foil (Paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the metallic sheet of the connection layer of Faotto to be an aluminum sheet which is taught by Bordin to be a heat reflective material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783