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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souther et al. (US 7,786,028) in view of Sandhar (US 2025/0230658) (filed 02/4/2014) and Arthurs (US 2021/0060911).
Regarding claim 1, Souther teaches roofing underlayments which are formed from lightweight, nonwoven polymeric fiber mat composites (Col. 1, Lines 9-18; Col. 1, Line 66-Col. 2, Line 28). The composites are formed mainly from a nonwoven mat of polymeric fibers which are continuous spunbond fibers (“a main layer formed of a fibrous non-woven material comprising a plurality of continuous randomly oriented entangled fibers”) (Col. 5, Lines 41-50; Fig. 1). The mats may further include coating materials on the top and bottom of the mats as shown in figure 5 (Col. 4, Lines 35-40). The mats may further have nail sealability and improved waterproofing (“wherein the main layer is compressed to create a nail-sealable waterproof membrane via capillary action of the continuous randomly oriented entangled fibers of the main layer”) (Col. 13, Lines 1-57).
Souther is silent with respect to the top coating layer being an anti-slip layer comprising an anti-slip surface.
Sandhar teaches roofing membrane materials having slip resistant characteristics (Paragraph [0002]). The roofing materials are made to be slip resistant in dry, wet or frosty conditions through the use of a unique nonwoven top surface of raised fibrous structures creating a high coefficient of friction when in contact with the footwear of an installer (Paragraph [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the top surface of the mats to have a top surface of raised fibrous structures creating a high coefficient of friction when in contact with the footwear of an installer allowing the mats to be slip-resistant during dry, wet and frosty conditions as taught by Sandhar.
Souther is silent with respect to the bottom surface of the mats having an anti-skid layer with anti-skid additives.
Arthurs teaches roofing underlayments which have a coating disposed on a deck-facing surface of a woven-scrim layer (Paragraph [0002]). The coating imparts waterproofing and tacky/non-skid materials providing the roofing underlayments with anti-skid properties (Paragraphs [0040]-[0042; [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the bottom surface of the mats from the functional coatings of Arthurs in order to provide anti-skid properties to the composite.
Regarding claim 2, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mats are formed from a nonwoven mat of polymeric fibers which are continuous spunbond fibers.
Regarding claim 4, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Souther further teaches the mats may have a thickness of 15 mils (381 microns) (Col. 9, Lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 5, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Souther is silent with respect to the thickness of the main layer being about 75-80% of the entire thickness of the composites.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to optimize the ----thickness of the mats in relation to the entire thickness of the composites taught by the combination of Souther, Sandhar and Arthurs as the inventions are directed to roofing underlayments as discussed above, and the Applicant's invention is also directed towards roofing underlayments (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). As such, the range of the thickness of the main layer being about 75-80% of the entire thickness of the composites as claimed is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, because the roofing underlayments are sized in order to be utilized on roofing during installation, the thicknesses percentages as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 6, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the mats may further have nail sealability and improved waterproofing.
Regarding claim 7, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Sandhar further teaches the application of the slip-resistant layer to a woven scrim through a lamination layer of polymeric material (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the lamination layer is formed from a polymeric layer.
Regarding claim 9, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the composites are formed from a non-woven top layer and a functional coating on a mat of continuous fibers (“devoid of asphalt or adhesive”).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souther et al. (US 7,786,028) in view of Sandhar (US 2025/0230658) (filed 02/4/2014) and Arthurs (US 2021/0060911) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Vido et al. (US 2020/0399903).
Regarding claim 3, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 2. As discussed above, Souther teaches the mats being formed from spunbond fibers and may further be joined via heat and pressure (“embossed” & “spunbond”)
Souther is silent with respect to the fibers being polypropylene fibers.
Vido teaches roofing underlayments configured to enhance traction and walkability (Paragraph [0002]). The underlayments are formed from a base layer of woven or non-woven material of a polypropylene (Paragraph [0017]-[0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the mats from polypropylene which is taught to be a suitable polymer for a base layer of a roofing underlayment as taught by Vido.
Furthermore, the limitation of the fibers being double-beam appears to be a product-by-process limitation which does not impart any further characteristics to the fibers of the instant invention (PGPUB, Paragraph [0023]). MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Souther is silent with respect to the composites being about 245 to 360 GSM.
Vido teaches roofing underlayments configured to enhance traction and walkability (Paragraph [0002]). The underlayments are further taught to have a basis weight of 75 to 460 GSM (Paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the composites as underlayments with a basis weight of 75 to 460 GSM which is taught by Vido to be a sufficient basis weight for underlayments having desired traction and walkability.
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souther et al. (US 7,786,028) in view of Sandhar (US 2025/0230658) (filed 02/4/2014) and Arthurs (US 2021/0060911).
Regarding claim 11, Souther teaches roofing underlayments which are formed from lightweight, nonwoven polymeric fiber mat composites (Col. 1, Lines 9-18; Col. 1, Line 66-Col. 2, Line 28). The composites are formed mainly from a nonwoven mat of polymeric fibers which are continuous spunbond fibers (“a main layer formed of a fibrous non-woven material comprising a plurality of continuous randomly oriented entangled fibers”) (Col. 5, Lines 41-50; Fig. 1). The mats may further include coating materials on the top and bottom of the mats as shown in figure 5 (Col. 4, Lines 35-40). The mats may further have nail sealability and improved waterproofing (“wherein the main layer is compressed to create a nail-sealable waterproof membrane via capillary action of the continuous randomly oriented entangled fibers of the main layer”) (Col. 13, Lines 1-57). Souther further teaches the mats may have a thickness of 15 mils (381 microns) (Col. 9, Lines 9-19).
Souther is silent with respect to the top coating layer being an anti-slip layer comprising an anti-slip surface.
Sandhar teaches roofing membrane materials having slip resistant characteristics (Paragraph [0002]). The roofing materials are made to be slip resistant in dry, wet or frosty conditions through the use of a unique nonwoven top surface of raised fibrous structures creating a high coefficient of friction when in contact with the footwear of an installer (Paragraph [0011]). Sandhar further teaches the application of the slip-resistant layer to a woven scrim through a lamination layer of polymeric material (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the top surface of the mats to have a top surface of raised fibrous structures creating a high coefficient of friction when in contact with the footwear of an installer allowing the mats to be slip-resistant during dry, wet and frosty conditions as taught by Sandhar.
Souther is silent with respect to the bottom surface of the mats having an anti-skid layer with anti-skid additives.
Arthurs teaches roofing underlayments which has a coating disposed on a deck-facing surface of a woven-scrim layer (Paragraph [0002]). The coating imparts waterproofing and tacky/non-skid materials providing the roofing underlayments with anti-skid properties (Paragraphs [0040]-[0042; [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the bottom surface of the mats from the functional coatings of Arthurs in order to provide anti-skid properties to the composite.
Regarding claim 13, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, the composites are formed from a non-woven top layer and a functional coating on a mat of continuous fibers (“devoid of asphalt or adhesive”).
Regarding claim 14, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, the bottom layer is the anti-skid layer and the top layer is an anti-slip layer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souther et al. (US 7,786,028) in view of Sandhar (US 2025/0230658) (filed 02/4/2014) and Arthurs (US 2021/0060911) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Vido et al. (US 2020/0399903).
Regarding claim 12, Souther teaches the composites as discussed above with respect to claim 11. As discussed above, Souther teaches the mats being formed from spunbond fibers and may further be joined via heat and pressure (“embossed” & “spunbond”)
Souther is silent with respect to the fibers being polypropylene fibers.
Vido teaches roofing underlayments configured to enhance traction and walkability (Paragraph [0002]). The underlayments are formed from a base layer of woven or non-woven material of a polypropylene (Paragraph [0017]-[0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the mats from polypropylene which is taught to be a suitable polymer for a base layer of a roofing underlayment as taught by Vido.
Furthermore, the limitation of the fibers being double-beam appears to be a product-by-process limitation which does not impart any further characteristics to the fibers of the instant invention (PGPUB, Paragraph [0023]). MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights