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 § 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esmay USPN_4415615.
1. Regarding Claim 20, Esmay discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive membrane/layer (Abstract; column 1, lines 11-13) comprising voids (corresponds to claimed plurality of window regions); wherein said layer incorporates (corresponds to claimed encasing) a scrim of fibers (corresponds to claimed scrim comprised of grid of fibers) (Example 24); which would inherently be coated with said PSA membrane/layer. Although Esmay does not disclose the claimed apparent density, it does state that the less dense adhesive membranes can provide substantial adhesive thicknesses at very low cost and that greater adhesive thickness is often desirable because this tends to provide greater resistance to peel forces (column 2, lines 3-12). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparent density according to such cost, peeling, and thickness factors that are largely end-user product specific.
Claim(s) 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esmay USPN_4415615 in view of Sher USPN_6197397_B1.
2. Regarding Claims 14, 18, 19, Esmay discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive membrane/layer (Abstract; column 1, lines 11-13) comprising voids (corresponds to claimed plurality of window regions); wherein said layer incorporates (corresponds to claimed encasing) a scrim of fibers (corresponds to claimed scrim comprised of grid of fibers) (Example 24); which would inherently be coated with said PSA membrane/layer.
3. Esmay does not disclose the claimed roughness.
4. Sher discloses adhesive having a given topography (corresponds to roughness) (Title). Sher further discloses that when an adhesion interface is established between the layer of adhesive and a supporting substrate, the topography (corresponds to roughness) of the adhesive surface controls the performance of the adhesion interface (abstract).
5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the topography (corresponds to roughness), of Esmay, by choosing a topography (corresponds to roughness) that helps with the performance of the adhesion, as disclosed by Sher. As such, this would be considered as a result-effective variable known within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed. The Examiner was unable to find any reference that teaches and/or suggests the claimed average thickness of the plurality of window regions being less than an average thickness of the grid region.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights