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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2010/0297902 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Smith teaches a cross-linked waterproof membrane comprising: a reinforcement scrim (a support carrier) composed of a nonwoven fabric (Smith: abstract; par. 0008-0011) which may be formed of polypropylene fibers and would inherently have a first and second surface (Smith cites Horne US 2007/0065630 A1 as a source of suitable fiber materials; par. 0009 of Horne cites polypropylene fibers). The fabric may be fully impregnated with a mixture and cured (a cured precoat) (Smith: par. 0009-0011). As the nonwoven fabric is impregnated with the precoat, it would inherently fill spaces between the fibers and as the fabric is fully impregnated it would fill spaces in the first surface of the nonwoven fabric. Additionally, as the fabric may be coated and/or impregnated, there would exist an embodiment in which no film is formed on the fabric forming a support carrier first surface. Additionally, Smith further disclosed additional coating process may be utilized with the mixture with the language of “coat and/or impregnate” which suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an additional coating step that is separate from the precoat impregnation. The additional coating step may be considered to form a topcoat layer bonded to said support carrier first surface (Smith: par. 0009-0011). The topcoat may comprise a mixture that is composed of polyurethane that has free reactive polyisocyanate groups that react upon curing (a crosslinked polyurethane) (Smith: par. 0011).
The limitation requiring the nonwoven fabric to be “spunbound” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the generally claimed “spunbound” polypropylene nonwoven fabric and the disclosed polypropylene nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claims 3 and 4,
Smith teaches the cross-linked waterproof membrane required by claim 1. Smith further teaches the precoat may comprise a mixture of polyurethane and a polypropylene (Smith: par. 0010).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Baba et al. (JP H1150609 A; machine translation).
Regarding claim 2,
Smith teaches the cross-linked waterproof membrane required by claim 1. Smith is silent towards the thickness of the topcoat layer being from 0.4 to 1.9 mm.
Baba teaches a waterproof membrane comprising a coating, comprising polyurethane, on a spun bound non-woven fabric composed of polypropylene fibers, in which the coating is 600 µm (converts to 0.6 mm which is within the claimed range) and provides improved nail hole sealing properties while maintaining moisture permeability and water pressure resistance (Baba: abstract; par. 0015-0017).
Smith and Baba are in the corresponding field of waterproof membranes composed of polyurethane coatings on fabric carrier layers for use in roofing. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a thickness for the topcoat of Smith to be within the claimed range to provide adequate nail hole sealing properties while maintain moisture permeability and water pressure resistance as taught by Baba.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funkhouser (US 5,979,133 A) in view of Smith.
Regarding claim 5,
Funkhouser teaches a waterproof multilayer system for roofing, comprising in order from a roof (11): a) a roofing primer (13); b) an adherent tacky rubberized layer (15, an adhesive layer); a reinforcing mesh layer (16); and an outer sealant layer (17, a top finish layer) comprising a polyurethane (Funkhouser: abstract; Fig. 2; col. 2, lin. 5-17; col. 3, lin. 7-14).
Funkhouser does not explicitly teach the reinforcing mesh layer (16) is a cross-linked waterproof membrane of claim 1.
Smith teaches the cross-linked waterproof membrane required by claim 1 as explained above. That is, Smith teaches a cross-linked waterproof membrane having improved UV stability without adversely affecting the flexibility of the dried and/or cured blend comprising: a reinforcement scrim (a support carrier) composed of a nonwoven fabric (Smith: abstract; par. 0008-0011) which may be formed of polypropylene fibers and would inherently have a first and second surface (Smith cites Horne US 2007/0065630 A1 as a source of suitable fiber materials; par. 0009 of Horne cites polypropylene fibers). The fabric may be fully impregnated with a mixture and cured (a cured precoat) (Smith: par. 0009-0011). As the nonwoven fabric is impregnated with the precoat, it would inherently fill spaces between the fibers and as the fabric is fully impregnated it would fill spaces in the first surface of the nonwoven fabric. Additionally, as the fabric may be coated and/or impregnated, there would exist an embodiment in which no film is formed on the fabric forming a support carrier first surface. Additionally, Smith further disclosed additional coating process may be utilized with the mixture with the language of “coat and/or impregnate” which suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an additional coating step that is separate from the precoat impregnation. The additional coating step may be considered to form a topcoat layer bonded to said support carrier first surface (Smith: par. 0009-0011). The topcoat may comprise a mixture that is composed of polyurethane that has free reactive polyisocyanate groups that react upon curing (a crosslinked polyurethane) (Smith: par. 0011).
The limitation requiring the nonwoven fabric to be “spunbound” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the generally claimed “spunbound” polypropylene nonwoven fabric and the disclosed polypropylene nonwoven fabric.
Funkhouser and Smith are in the corresponding field of membrane laminates for use in roofing. Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize the cross-linked waterproof membrane of Smith in place of the reinforcing fabric of Funkhouser to provide improved UV stability without adversely affecting the flexibility while maintaining waterproofing properties as taught by Smith. The resulting laminate would have the cross-linked waterproof membrane support carrier second surface adhered to the roofing primer by the adhesive layer.
Funkhouser is also silent towards the polyurethane in the top finish layer being cured. However, the top finish layer would be on the topcoat surface of the cross-linked waterproof membrane.
Smith teaches using moisture-curing polyurethane to provide improved UV resistance, good resistance to oxidation, and aging (Smith: par. 0011 and 0021). Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize a cured polyurethane, such as taught by Smith, in the top finish layer of Funkhouser to provide the improved UV light resistance and good resistance to oxidation and aging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 D. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783