DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-26, 28, 30-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre et al (US 2019/0186144 A1) in view of Arigo et al (US 2018/0282588 A1).
Regarding claims 18, 25, 30-34, and 37, LaTorre teaches a roofing shingle comprising a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises at least one of a fiberglass, a polyester, or any combination thereof; and a coating (e.g., polymer-modified asphalt) on the substrate, wherein the coating comprises a non-crosslinked thermoplastic polymer (e.g., polymer additive), a filler (e.g., calcium carbonate), oil or wax, and asphalt (para 7, 40, 52, 65, 70, 90-99, 103-106, 115).
LaTorre fails to suggest the coating does not comprise a foam.
Arigo teaches modified hydrocarbon thermoplastic resins that comprise about 10 to about 90 weight percent of at least one polymer, about 0 to about 70 weight percent of at least one filler (e.g., calcium carbonate), about 0 to about 50 weight percent of at least one wax, and about 0 to about 60 weight percent or at least one oil (abstract, para 11). Arigo further teaches that its modified thermoplastic hydrocarbon thermoplastic resins may be used in laminate and roofing products and be used to lower the viscosity of bitumen or asphalt compounds (para 19, 30, 130, 164-165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the modified thermoplastic hydrocarbon thermoplastic resins of Arigo with the polymer-modified asphalt of LaTorre as modified by Arigo, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I).
Arigo teaches its composition may comprise about 10 to about 90 weight percent of at least one polymer, about 0 to about 70 weight percent of at least one filler, about 0 to about 50 weight percent of at least one wax, and about 0 to about 60 weight percent or at least one oil (abstract, para 11). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Arigo, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “0.1% to 5% by weight of an asphalt based on the total weight of the coating;” Arigo teaches the purpose of its composition is to lower the viscosity of traditional asphalt or bitumen (para 130), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of the modified hydrocarbon thermoplastic resin in the mixture of the polymer-modified asphalt of LaTorre to optimize its viscosity as well as the final physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., weight, durability, flexibility, strength, etc…) of the resultant shingle.
Arigo teaches the optional use of blowing and foaming agents in its composition (para 161) which would have suggested embodiments with or without foam to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 19-24, Arigo teaches the polymer may be polyisobutylene (i.e., an amorphous polyolefin), thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers, EVA (a vinyl polymer), and/or polypropylene (i.e., the polymer has a Melt Flow Index, in accordance with ISO 1133, of 0.5 g/min to 40 g/min at 190°C/2.16 kg) (para 17).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, LaTorre teaches its polymer modified asphalts comprise Fischer-Tropsch wax and ethylene bistearamide (EBS) (para 105, 107); Arigo teaches its compositions (particularly when used in mastics) comprise Fischer-Tropsch waxes and processing oils (para 155-156).
Regarding claim 36, LaTorre teaches its polymer modified asphalts comprises fire retardants (para 94); and Arigo teaches its compositions comprise fire and flame retardants, pigments, and dyes (para 161).
Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre and Arigo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schroder (US 1,218,217 A).
LaTorre as modified by Arigo suggests the roofing shingle of claim 1.
LaTorre as modified by Arigo fails to suggest wherein the coating further comprises an oxidized hydrocarbon oil. However, Arigo teaches its compositions (particularly when used in mastics or waterproofing compounds) comprise Fischer-Tropsch waxes and processing oils (para 19, 155-156).
Schroder teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention to use oxidized hydrocarbon oils (e.g., linseed or poppyseed oil) to waterproof building materials (col 1, line 35-col 2, line 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the oxidized hydrocarbon oils of Schroder with the wax and/or oils of LaTorre as modified by Arigo, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention substitute the oxidized hydrocarbon oils of Schroder for the wax and/or oil emulsions of LaTorre as modified by Arigo, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaTorre and Arigo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Guymon et al (US 2015/0018460 A1) and Vestenamer (2016)
LaTorre as modified by Arigo suggests the roofing shingle of claim 1.
LaTorre as modified by Arigo fails to suggest wherein the coating further comprises a polytransoctenamer rubber (TOR); and wherein the coating further comprises 1% to 10% by weight of a polytransoctenamer rubber (TOR) based on the total weight of the coating.
Guymon teaches thermoplastics used in sealants, adhesives and/or roofing that comprise recycled materials (abstract, para 14); wherein the recycled material comprises ground tire material (i.e., recycled rubber), various waxes, and oils (para 21, table 1, 2); and provide an environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, and clean way to dispose of such materials (para 40).
Vestenamer teaches trans-polyoctenamer rubber (TOR) functions as a plasticizer in the processing of ground rubber; and enables a very good coating of the ground rubber and a reduction of compound viscosity (page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the recycled materials of Guymon with the polymer-modified asphalt coating of LaTorre as modified by Arigo to provide an environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, and clean way to dispose of such materials. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine and adjust the amount of the trans-polyoctenamer rubber (TOR) of Vestenamer in the polymer modified asphalt coating of LaTorre as modified by Arigo and Guymon to insure proper processing, a proper viscosity, and a very good coating of the polymer modified asphalt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783