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 claims 1-10 and 15-20 in the reply filed on Oct. 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 7, and 8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “A mat/mesh laminate, formed
by a glass fiber mat.
and by a glass yarn mesh…”
Claim 1 is not clear as “formed by” is not a proper transitional phrase so that the invention is clearly defined. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “A mat/mesh laminate, comprising a glass fiber mat…and a glass yarn mesh…”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the weft yarns and warp yarns” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the glass yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
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