Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide support for “not from synthetic origin”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-20 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 “wherein the nonwoven support consists of spunbonded fiber of synthetic origin derived from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). However, claim 15 recites “wherein the nonwoven support comprises synthetic metal or glass reinforcing wires or lattice structures”. Therefore the scope of claim 1 is not clear, because it is not clear whether the “consists of” only refers to the fibers of the nonwoven support being spunbonded fibers or if it also refers to the fibers being PET, in which case claim 15 would be indefinite because it adds additional fibers to the nonwoven support.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Herwijnen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0108741 in view of EP 2,192,153 and Floyd et al, EP 0405921A .
Van Herwijnen discloses a binding resin for a nonwoven fabric consisting of an aqueous starch based solution, a crosslinking agent of natural origin and a catalyst. See paragraphs 0019 – 0027; 0032. The starch can be a natural starch or one which has been subjected to control degradation or physical treatments. See paragraph 0019-0025. The nonwoven can comprise glass, cellulose, hemp, wool, jute, polyester, acrylic, nylon , mineral fibers, and metal fibers. The fibers can be made by a spunbonding process. See paragraphs 0041 -0042. The structures are useful in roofing, flooring and insulating applications. See paragraph 0040. The catalyst can be selected from those claimed. See paragraph 0032. The ratio of starch to crosslinking agent can be 95/5-35/65 which encompasses the claimed percentages by weight. The crosslinking agent can be formed from a multifunctional acid having at least two carboxylic groups such as citric acid maleic acid, and succinic acid. See paragraph 0027. Van Herwijnen teaches that additives can be present such as glycerol, (paragraph 0033) or hydrophobic agents, (paragraph 0031). Van Herwijnen does not disclose the particular amount of the additives, but since the glycerol is present as an additive to modify viscosity and the hydrophobic agents to render the structure hydrophobic, it would have been obvious to have selected the amount of the additives which produced the desired effects in the structure without using excess materials, through the process of routine experimentation. Further, EP ‘153 teaches employing up to 10% of additives such as hydrophobic agents. See paragraph 0071. Therefore, also in view of the teachings of EP ‘153, it would have been obvious to have selected amounts of additive of up to about 10 %.
Van Herwijnen differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the amount of starch present in the binder, does not explicitly teach polyethylene terephthalate fibers as the polyester fibers usable in the nonwoven, and does not explicitly teach a bitumen impregnation, although Van Herwijnen does teach that the structures are useful in roofing and construction applications and should be capable of withstanding high temperatures, (see paragraph 0036).
However, EP ‘153 teaches that it was known to use various types of fibers to make up nonwoven fabrics which will be treated with binders comprising starch based binders, including nonwovens which consist of glass and which consist of polyethylene terephthalate, wherein the fabrics are used as backings for carpets and as roofing sheets. The fabrics must have good mechanical stability, perforation strength and tensile strength, as well as resistance to thermal stress during the application of coatings such as bitumen. See paragraphs 0001-0003; 0072-0074, 0080-0082.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed other substrates such as PET nonwovens as taught by EP ‘153 as the substrate in Van Herwijnen, in view of the teaching of EP ‘153 that it was known in the art to use such nonwovens as alternatives to glass fiber nonwovens as fabrics which are coated with binders comprising starch and used in various applications including roofing and thus to have applied the membrane to a roof as per new claim 41, and to have applied a bitumen impregnation to the thus formed nonwovens, in view of the teaching of EP ‘153 that such structures were suitable for this intended purpose.
Further, Floyd discloses a bituminous roofing membrane comprising a polyester nonwoven substrate comprising an aqueous binder composition comprising starch, a starch based crosslinking agent and a catalyst, which is impregnated with bitumen to form a roofing membrane. See abstract. The binders are disclosed as useful for nonwoven fabrics comprising polyester, polypropylene, glass or cellulosic fibers. Floyd et al teaches that See page 2, lines 1-2. The starch components can be derived from corn, wheat, potato, tapioca and dextrins. See page 3, lines 7-8; page 4, lines 38-49. The crosslinking agent is preferably a non-formaldehyde starch crosslinking agent. See page 4, lines 56-58. Floyd teaches that the binders are useful in forming mats, hot oil filters, adhesives for plywood and particle board as well as in forming single ply, bitumen roofing materials. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from Floyd as well as from EP ‘153 that it was known in the art of forming bitumen roofing materials that nonwoven fabrics comprising starch binders were suitable for use as the base fibrous substrate for forming bitumen impregnated roofing fabrics or membranes.
It further would have been obvious to have provided a binder having an amount of starch in the binding resin which produced a suitably bonded nonwoven product without using excess materials. Further, EP ‘153 teaches amounts of 1-70% as suitable amounts for the starch component in a binder composition. See paragraph 0009 of EP ‘153. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed an amount of starch between 1 and 70% in the binder of Van Herwijnen as taught by EP ‘153 as a suitable amount.
With regard to the particular properties claimed in claims 16 and 17, since Van Herwijnen discloses the same materials and further since Van Herwijnen teaches a material suitable for use in roofing application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the properties of tensile deformation and Young’s modulus depending on the final use of the product.
With regard to the recitation of the binder being 100% of natural origin, since no particular definition is provided for the term “natural”, any material which is made of chemical elements where at least the elements are found in nature is considered to be of natural origin. Further, since the same components are used including starch, a crosslinking agent of natural origin and a catalyst, the material of Van Herwijnen is natural and sustainable, since starch is a product which can be produced by growing.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Herwijnen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0108741 in view of EP 2,192,153 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Trksak et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/03330376.
Van Herwijnen differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the amount of catalyst relative to the amount of crosslinking agent and is silent as to the amount of catalyst present. However, since it is well-known that a catalyst is present to facilitate and/or increase the rate of a chemical reaction but not to form a part of the final reaction product, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to select the amount of catalyst which increased the rate of the reaction of Van Herwijnen without using any excess catalyst, since there is always a motivation to use only a sufficient amount of any component for reasons of efficiency and economy. Further, Trksak teaches that catalysts can be employed in the formation of formaldehyde-free starch based binders in amounts of 1-10 percent of the total weight of the binder. See paragraph 0045. Since the crosslinking agent can be present in amounts of as little as 5 percent of the binder and the catalyst can be present in amounts of 1-10 percent of the binder, the proportions of catalyst and crosslinking agent would be within the ranges as claimed when applying the teaching of Trksak to the composition of Van Herwijnen.
Claim 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Herwijnen et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0108741 in view of EP 2,192,153 and Floyd et al, EP 0405921A as applied to claims above, and further in view of Larsson et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,617,229.
Van Herwijnen in view of EP ‘153 and Floyd does not disclose the claimed basis weight range for the nonwoven plus the binder.
However, Larsson teaches that suitable weights for nonwoven substrates to be impregnated with bitumen 150 gsm or less. Larsson teaches a nonwoven in example 1 which has a weight of 125 gsm which is then coated with binder. The binder is present in at least 10 percent by weight of the fabric. See col. 2, lines 10-18 and lines 42-49 and example 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed a nonwoven having a weight as taught by Larsson in the structure of Van Herwijnen in order to provide a fabric having suitable dimensional stability and a light weight. Note that Van Herwijnen teaches that the nonwovens can be as thin as a quarter of an inch or have a thickness of 14 inches or more. See paragraph 0049.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789