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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11, 16-17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “A TPO roofing membrane” should be “A thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) roofing membrane”. (Further instances of “TPO” in the claims do not require modification.)
Claim 1, line 7, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 1, line 8, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 5, line 2, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 11, line 2, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 16, line 2, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 17, line 2, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Claim 22, line 1, “the TPO membrane” should be “the TPO roofing membrane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 5-7, 11-13, and 17-21 is/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.
Claims 5-7, 11-13, and 17 each disclose concentration ranges that render the claims indefinite. For example, claim 5 recites “elastomers are added to the TPO membrane in a concentration of 5% to 70% of elastomer percent in total polymer.” The phrase “the TPO membrane” appears to be a shorted form of the originally disclosed “A TPO roofing membrane” (see claim objections above). The TPO roofing membrane comprises all of a top TPO layer, a middle scrim layer, and a bottom TPO layer as defined in claim 1. It is unclear if the “total polymer” used to calculate the basis for the concentration percentages of claims 5, 11, and 17 refers to the total polymers used in the entirety of the TPO roofing membrane (i.e., the total polymers in the top TPO layer, the middle scrim layer, and the bottom TPO layer), or if the “total polymer” refers to the total polymers used in a given layer where the elastomer is present (e.g., if the elastomer is present only in the bottom TPO layer, the concentration is calculated relative to the total polymers used in the bottom TPO layer only, and the polymers used in other layers are not part of the calculation). In the present specification, calculations disclosed in Examples appear to disclose concentrations based on the total polymers used in a given layer (see, e.g., [00041-00042] and Tables 1-2), but the specification does not otherwise appear to resolve the issue of indefiniteness.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the polypropylene-based (C3) elastomers" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the (C3) elastomer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a flexural modulus of 2-200 MPa”, and the claim also recites “preferably 5-150 MPa and most preferably 7-100 MPa.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the (C2) elastomer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the (C2) elastomer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the (C2) elastomer" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a flexural modulus of 2-200 MPa”, and the claim also recites “preferably 5-150 MPa and most preferably 7-100 MPa.” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roskamp et al. (EP 3643494) as evidenced by the Product Datasheet for VISTAMAXX Performance Polymer 6202 (ExxonMobil, 2020).
Regarding claim 1:
Roskamp discloses a sealing device for roofs that is heat-weldable [abstract; 0001; 0011]. In one embodiment, the device (1) comprises a top layer (5), reinforcement layer (4), waterproofing layer (2), and non-woven fabric (3) [0021; 0059; 0132; Fig. 4]. The reinforcement layer comprises a scrim [0061; 0064]. The waterproofing layer comprises at least one thermoplastic elastomer component P1 and an elastomer E [0073-0074]. The at least one thermoplastic elastomer P1 comprises TPO [0043-0047; 0077-0080]. The waterproofing layer (2) and the top layer (5) have “substantially identical polymer basis” (i.e., both are TPO layers) [0059; 0069].
Although Roskamp is silent with regard to the elastomeric component increasing induction welding performance, the examiner submits Roskamp’s elastomeric component meets the claimed limitation because Roskamp otherwise discloses the same elastomeric components as presently claimed. Additionally, see the discussions of claims 18 and 21 below, which further point to Roskamp’s teaching of the same materials used in the present invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Roskamp teaches propylene-based elastomers [0048-0052; 0137-0139; Table 1].
Regarding claim 4:
Roskamp teaches embodiments wherein the waterproofing layer (2) and the top layer (5) have “substantially identical compositions”.
Regarding claims 5-7:
The basis for the claimed concentration is unclear. See the rejections under 35 USC 112. Roskamp teaches a given waterproofing layer comprises 5-60% by weight of elastomer E [0075].
Regarding claim 14:
Roskamp teaches ethylene-based thermoplastic elastomer [0081-0085].
Regarding claim 15:
See the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16:
See the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17:
See the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18:
Roskamp teaches the use of VISTAMAXX 6202 propylene-ethylene copolymer [0050; 0139; Table 1]. As evidenced by the datasheet for this material, it has a flexural modulus of 13 MPa.
Regarding claim 19:
Roskamp teaches random ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers [0050; 0083].
Regarding claim 20:
Roskamp teaches block ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers [0085].
Regarding claim 21:
Roskamp teaches the use of VISTAMAXX 6202 propylene-ethylene copolymer [0050; 0139; Table 1]. As evidenced by the datasheet for this material, it has a flexural modulus of 13 MPa. The examiner considers this broadly to be a C2 elastomer because it uses ethylene. Additionally, Roskamp teaches other commercial materials at [0084-0085] that are the same as used in the present invention, which would be expected to satisfy the claimed requirements. See the present specification at [00033].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roskamp et al. (EP 3643494).
Regarding claim 3:
Although Roskamp teaches the waterproofing layer (2) and the top layer (5) have “substantially identical polymer basis” (i.e., both contain TPO) [0069], this disclosure is distinct from the layers having “substantially identical compositions” which is a feature disclosed in further embodiments [Id.]. Additionally, Roskamp teaches multiple waterproofing layers can be used with different compositions [0059]. Therefore, Roskamp does not require the waterproofing layer (2) and the top layer (5) to have identical compositions, and so Roskamp does not require the presence of the ethylene-based thermoplastic elastomer in one of the layers (2) and (5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not add ethylene-based thermoplastic elastomer in one of the layers (2) and (5) while still adding such elastomer to one of the layers, to provide the mechanical and welding properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 8:
Roskamp teaches compositions comprising “at least one” of each elastomer [0073]. The reference teaches propylene-based elastomers [0048-0052; 0137-0139; Table 1] and ethylene-based thermoplastic elastomer [0081-0085].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of such elastomers to provide the desired mechanical and welding properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 9:
See the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 10:
See the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claims 11-13:
See the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roskamp et al. (EP 3643494 in view of Kuipers (US 4,977,720)
Regarding claim 22:
Roskamp discloses sealing devices for roofs as previously explained. Roofing membranes are fastened to the roof substrate via plates [0005].
Roskamp is silent with regard to the plate spacing and wind uplifting rate.
One skilled in the art recognized the spacing could be adjusted as needed. For example, Kuipers discloses a welded plastic roofing system overlaying a roof deck (abstract; 1:24+; 1:53+). The system uses a thermoplastic fastener plate in a spacing that is not critical as long they are close enough together to hold down the roof membrane (1:53+). The fasteners can be used with inductive welding techniques (2:37+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any spacing that provides a degree of fastening, including wind uplifting rate which is a measure thereof, that is desired for a given end use, including wind uplifting values as presently claimed. Additionally, given that Roskamp discloses a sealing device (membrane) that comprises the same components as used in the present invention, the examiner submits it would have the same properties when used in the same configuration as the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787