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 § 102/103
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 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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2007/0012414 to Kajander or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2007/0012414 to Kajander in view of USPAP 2005/0276960 to Lee and/or USPAP 2009/0071617 to Huang.
Claim 1, Kajander discloses a fiber mat comprises: an assembly of chopped fibers comprising a minority portion and a majority portion, the minority portion forming a first layer and comprising a set of polymer fibers, and a majority portion forming a second layer and comprising a set of glass fibers, wherein at least the set of polymer fibers, the set of glass fibers, or combination thereof is blended with a set of natural fibers; and a binder comprising an organic resin, wherein the fiber mat inherently provides at least a 5% increase in tear when placed in a bituminous roofing product compared to an equivalent bituminous roofing product made with the equivalent weight fiber mat containing a homogenous mat structure (see entire document including [0008], [0019], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0030], [0032], [0034], [0037] and [0044]-[0047]).
Kajander explicitly discloses that each layer may comprise glass fibers, polymer fibers, natural fibers, or a mixture thereof ([0019] and [0034]). Therefore, either Kajander discloses the claimed fiber materials with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the layers from any suitable combination of fiber materials, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
In addition to Kajander disclosing the use of chopped fibers ([0018] and [0034]), Lee and Huang also disclose that it is known in the art to use chopped fibers (see entire documents including [0001]-[0004] of Lee and [0001]-[0004] of Huang). Therefore, either Kajander teaches the chopped fibers with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the nonwoven layers of Kajander with chopped fibers, because it is conventional in the building/roofing reinforcement art to use chopped fibers and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
The claimed tear strength property appears to be inherent since the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical fiber mat in terms of structure and materials. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 2, the natural fibers comprise a basalt fiber, an animal-based fiber, a plant-based fiber, or combination thereof ([0019] and [0034]).
Claim 3, the natural fibers comprise a plant-based fiber ([0019] and [0034]).
Claims 4 and 5, the polymer fibers may comprise polyester [0034]. The examiner takes official notice that PET fiber is commonly used in the roofing fiber mat art and therefore it would have been obvious to select PET as the polymer fiber material.
Claim 6, the polymer fibers are present at an amount of about 0.5 weight % to about 10 weight %, such as about 1 weight % to 5 weight %, such as about 1 weight % to about 3 weight % of the total weight of the assembly of fibers ([0019], [0034] and [0047]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the weight percentages of each layer based on the intended application and on the basis of the desired fiber mat characteristics.
Claim 7, the set of polymer fibers of the minority portion comprises the polymer fibers blended with the natural fibers ([0019], [0034] and [0047]).
Claim 8, the minority portion is directly in contact with the majority portion at an interface, wherein the interface has a substantially distinct segregation between the minority portion and the majority portion ([0012] and [0030] of Kajander and [0021] of the current specification).
Claim 9, a center plane of the minority portion is closer in distance to one surface of the fiber mat (Figure 3). Plus, Kajander discloses that the thickness of the layers may be varied based on the intended use ([0031] and [0037]).
Claim 10, a center plane of the minority portion is approximately coincident to a center plane of the fiber mat (Figure 5 and claims 7-9). Plus, Kajander discloses that the thickness of the layers may be varied based on the intended use ([0031] and [0037]).
Claim 11, the minority portion comprises a substantially random orientation of chopped fibers ([0010], [0019], [0034] and [0038]). In addition to Kajander disclosing the use of chopped fibers ([0018] and [0034]), Lee and Huang also disclose that it is known in the art to use chopped fibers (see entire documents including [0001]-[0004] of Lee and [0001]-[0004] of Huang). Therefore, either Kajander teaches the chopped fibers with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the nonwoven layers of Kajander with chopped fibers, because it is conventional in the building/roofing reinforcement art to use chopped fibers and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 12, the majority portion comprises a substantially random orientation of chopped fibers ([0010], [0019], [0034] and [0038]). In addition to Kajander disclosing the use of chopped fibers ([0018] and [0034]), Lee and Huang also disclose that it is known in the art to use chopped fibers (see entire documents including [0001]-[0004] of Lee and [0001]-[0004] of Huang). Therefore, either Kajander teaches the chopped fibers with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the nonwoven layers of Kajander with chopped fibers, because it is conventional in the building/roofing reinforcement art to use chopped fibers and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 13, the set of glass fibers of the majority portion comprises the glass fibers blended with the natural fiber ([0019] and [0034]). Kajander explicitly discloses that each layer may comprise glass fibers, polymer fibers, natural fibers, or a mixture thereof ([0019] and [0034]). Therefore, either Kajander discloses the claimed fiber materials with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the layers from any suitable combination of fiber materials, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 14, the binder is substantially uniformly distributed throughout the fiber mat [0023].
Claims 15-17, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical fiber mat in terms of structure and materials the claimed properties appear to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the claimed values since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 18, the minority portion is less than 10 weight % of a total composition of the fiber mat ([0019], [0034] and [0047]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the weight percentages of each layer based on the intended application and on the basis of the desired fiber mat characteristics.
Claim 19, the majority portion is greater than 90 weight % of a total composition of the fiber mat ([0019], [0034] and [0047]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the weight percentages of each layer based on the intended application and on the basis of the desired fiber mat characteristics.
Claim 20, Kajander does not appear to mention the fiber mat being coated with asphalt but Lee discloses that it is known in the art to construct a roofing product wherein asphalt coats mat fibers ([0002] and [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the product of Kajander with asphalt, as claimed, to provide a roofing product.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/659,089. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights