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
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, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Esbelin discloses a mat/mesh laminate comprising a glass fiber mat bonded by a first organic polymer – a web of glass fibers has been interpreted as corresponding to the glass fiber mat, the mat is bonded by PVC, layers of 3a and 3c of PVC impregnate the web thus, causing the fibers to be bonded (0040-0042, 0069, 0082, 0084), and a glass yarn mesh having a titer of 68 tex that is coated with a second organic polymer – PVC – the “grid” formed of yarns of glass fibers corresponds to a glass yarn mesh (0040-0042, 0082, 0084). The titer of the glass yarn mesh is within the recited range. The glass yarn mesh is bonded to the glass fiber mat (0039, 0069).
Regarding the glass fibers mat having an air permeability as recited in the claim, the glass fibers mat has a surface density of between 40 g/m2 and 100 g/m2 (0041), which overlaps the range disclosed in the instant specification, thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an air permeability of the glass fiber mat of Esbelin is satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the glass yarn mesh is adhesively bonded to the glass fiber mat by the second organic polymer – PVC (0040, 0069, 0082, 0085).
As to claim 4, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the glass fiber mat has a mass per unit area of 40 g/m2 to 100 g/m2 (0041). The range of a mass per unit area overlaps the range recited in claim 4; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2155.05).
With respect to claim 6, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the glass yarn mesh consists of weft yarns and warp yarns all having the same titer – 68 tex (0082).
Regarding claim 10, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the mesh is a woven mesh – a “grid” is being interpreted as corresponding to a woven mesh (0040, 0041, 0081).
As to claim 15, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the glass fiber mat has a mass per unit area of 40 g/m2 to 100 g/m2 (0041). The range of a mass per unit area overlaps the range recited in claim 15; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2155.05).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Xing et al. (US 7217671 B1) (“Xing”).
With respect to claim 3, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the length and diameter of the glass fibers of the glass fiber mat. Xing discloses a glass fiber mat to be used in floor tiles (col. 1, lines 7-21), the glass fibers having a length of from about ¼ inch to about 3 inches and a diameter of from about 1 to about 50 microns (col. 3, lines 31-36). The ranges of the fiber length and diameter overlap the ranges recited in claim 3; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the glass fiber mat of Esbelin fibers having a length and diameter as disclosed in Xing, as fibers of such length and diameter are known in the art of floor tiles.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Boucke (US 2020/0131784 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, but is silent with respect to a thickness of the glass fiber mat as recited in the claim. Boucke discloses floor tiles (abstr.), wherein a reinforcement layer comprising glass fiber mat has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm (0068). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the glass fiber mat of Esbelin having a thickness as disclosed in Boucke as glass fiber mats having such thicknesses are known in the art of floor tiles, Esbelin’s laminate used in floor tiles.
With respect to claim 17, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 5, but is silent with respect to a thickness of the glass fiber mat as recited in the claim. Boucke discloses floor tiles (abstr.), wherein a reinforcement layer comprising glass fiber mat has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm (0068). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 17; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the glass fiber mat of Esbelin having a thickness as disclosed in Boucke as glass fiber mats having such thicknesses are known in the art of floor tiles, Esbelin’s laminate used in floor tiles.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Dong et al. (US 2008/0176469 A1) (“Dong”).
With respect to claim 7, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, but is silent regarding the density of the weft yarns and the warp yarns as recited in the claim. Dong discloses a glass yarn mesh used in a building material as a reinforcement (abstr., 0019), wherein the density of the weft and warp yarns is 1-6 per 2.54 cm (0019), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass fiber mesh of Esbelin having the weft and warp yarns density as disclosed in Dong as such density is known in the reinforcement for building materials.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Franz et al. (US 2016/0122911 A1) (“Franz”).
With respect to claim 8, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the number of glass yarns twists as recited in the claim. Franz discloses a material that can be used in floors, comprising glass yarn, wherein the glass yarn has a number of twists of 28 twists/m (abstr., 0167, 0173). The number of twists is within the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass yarns of Esbelin having the number of twists as disclosed in Franz, as such number is known in the art of materials to be used in floors.
With respect to claim 18, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 8 but is silent withrespect to the number of glass yarns twists as recited in the claim. Franz discloses a material that can be used in floors, comprising glass yarn, wherein the glass yarn has a number of twists of 28 twists/m (abstr., 0167, 0173). The number of twists is within the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass yarns of Esbelin having the number of twists as disclosed in Franz, as such number is known in the art of materials to be used in floors.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Boucke (US 2020/0131784 A1) and Dong et al. (US 2019/0145109 A1) (“Dong”).
Regarding claim 9, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein a mass per unit area of the mat is between 40 g/m2 and 100 g/m2 (0041), and a mass per unit area of the mesh is 50 g/m2 (0082), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mass per unit area of the laminate would overlap the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding the thickness of the laminate, Boucke discloses floor tiles (abstr.), wherein a reinforcement layer comprising glass fiber mat has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm (0068). Dong discloses a glass yarn mesh used in a building material as a reinforcement (abstr., 0019), wherein the thickness of the mesh is 0.27 mm (0027). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a thickness of a laminate comprising a mat having a thickness of the mat of Boucke and a mesh having a thickness if the mesh of Dong would be within the range recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 9, wherein a mass per unit area of the mat is between 40 g/m2 and 100 g/m2 (0041), and a mass per unit area of the mesh is 50 g/m2 (0082), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mass per unit area of the laminate would overlap the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding the thickness of the laminate, Boucke discloses floor tiles (abstr.), wherein a reinforcement layer comprising glass fiber mat has a thickness of from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm (0068). Dong discloses a glass yarn mesh used in a building material as a reinforcement (abstr., 0019), wherein the thickness of the mesh is 0.27 mm (0027). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a thickness of a laminate comprising a mat having a thickness as disclosed in Boucke and a mesh having a thickness as discloses in Dong would be within the range recited in claim 19.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Van Vlassenrode et al. (US 2020/0048915 A1) (“Van Vlassenrode”).
With respect to claim 16, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 15, but is silent with respect to the glass fiber mat having a mass per unit area of between 32 and 39 g/m2. Van Vlassenrode discloses a floor panel (abstr.), wherein a reinforcement layer comprising glass fiber mat has a mass per unit area of at least 30 g/m2 and less than 100 g/m2 (0020). The range of a mass per unit area overlaps the range recited in claim 16; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass fiber mat of Esbelin having a mass per unit area as disclosed in Vas Vlassenrode as such mass per unit area is known in the art of floor materials.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Couturier et al. (US 2013/0284364 A1) (“Couturier”).
With respect to claim 20, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 10, but is silent regarding the mesh being a knitted mesh. Couturier discloses a construction adhesive to be used with tiles (0010), wherein a reinforcement such as knitted mesh or woven mesh can be used (0023). Since woven and knitted meshes are interchangeable as reinforcements associated with tiles, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the mesh of Esbelin of a knitted mesh as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125, USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbelin (US 2019/0145109 A1), in view of Peltier et al. (US 4500591) (“Peltier”).
With respect to claim 21, Esbelin teaches the laminate of claim 1, wherein the second organic polymer is PVC (0067-0071), but is silent with respect to the first organic polymer being a resin selected from those recited in the claim. Peltier discloses composite materials including glass fiber substrates (abstr.), wherein the substrate is a glass fiber web bound with an urea-formaldehyde resin and coated with a PVC resin (col. 4, lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select urea-formaldehyde resin as the first polymer in the laminate of Esbelin as urea-formaldehyde resin and PVC are compatible in a laminate comprising glass fiber mats. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Esbelin discloses a mat/mesh laminate comprising a glass fiber mat bonded by a first organic polymer – a web of glass fibers has been interpreted as corresponding to the glass fiber mat, the mat is bonded by a first organic polymer, layers of 3a and 3c of PVC impregnate the web thus, causing the fibers to be bonded (0040-0042, 0069, 0082, 0084), and a glass yarn mesh having a titer of 68 tex that is coated with a second organic polymer – PVC – the “grid” formed of yarns of glass fibers corresponds to a glass yarn mesh (0040-0042, 0082, 0084). The titer of the glass yarn mesh is within the recited range. The glass yarn mesh is adhesively bonded to the glass fiber mat by the second organic polymer (0039, 0069).
Regarding the glass fibers mat having an air permeability as recited in the claim, the glass fibers mat has a surface density of between 40 g/m2 and 100 g/m2 (0041), which overlaps the range disclosed in the instant specification, thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an air permeability of the glass fiber mat of Esbelin is satisfied.
Regarding the first organic polymer being selected from the group recited in the claim Peltier discloses composite materials including glass fiber substrates (abstr.), wherein the substrate is a glass fiber web bound with an urea-formaldehyde resin and coated with a PVC resin (col. 4, lines 65-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select urea-formaldehyde resin as the first polymer in the laminate of Esbelin as urea-formaldehyde resin and PVC are compatible in laminates comprising glass fiber mats.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Apr. 16, 2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7, and 8 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant referred to the Office action as interpreting Esbelin reference as providing a laminate having the claimed air permeability (p. 7 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes Claim 1 does not recite the laminate having the required air permeability but it is the glass fiber mat that has the required air permeability, and this is how the claim was addressed in the recent rejection.
The Applicant argued that Esbelin is silent as to any air permeability of a glass web, disclosing only the basis weight of the web (p. 8 of the Remarks). The Applicant argued that the rejection supplies the missing limitation by assumption, that is, Esbelin’s basis-weight disclosure makes the claimed permeability inherently present, while permeability depends on other variables beyond basis weight, including binder loading. The Examiner notes since the glass fibers mat of Esbelin has a surface density of between 40 g/m2 and 100 g/m2 (0041), which overlaps the range disclosed in the instant specification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an air permeability of the glass fiber mat of Esbelin is satisfied. The Applicant argued that fiberglass nonwovens are typically consolidated using an organic fiber, the instant specification disclosing that the binder is used for the glass fibers mat. Thus, since it is general knowledge that fibers in a nonwoven are bound by a polymer, Esbelin’s glass fiber mat has been interpreted as being bound by a polymer, that is why the surface density of the mat as disclosed in Esbelin is indicative to the air permeability of the mat as disclosed in the instant specification.
Regarding the two new claims 21 and 22, although Esbelin does not disclose different polymer systems wherein the first polymer is a thermoset polymer as recited in the claims, a newly cited reference Peltier discloses a substrate which is a glass fiber web bound with an urea-formaldehyde resin and coated with a PVC resin (col. 4, lines 65-68), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select urea-formaldehyde resin as the first polymer in the laminate of Esbelin as urea-formaldehyde resin and PVC are compatible in a laminate comprising glass fiber mats.
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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights