METHOD OF INDUCTION WELDING USING ROOFING MEMBRANES HAVING REDUCED SCRIM DENSITIES

DETAILED ACTION The communication dated 12/16/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-22 are pending with claims 14-22 being withdrawn from further consideration. 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 of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/2026. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “roofing plates” should read “roofing anchor plates”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “density scrim density scrim” should read “density scrim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challita et al. (U.S. 10,925,124), hereinafter CHALLITA, in view of O’Conner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0148250), hereinafter OCONNER. Regarding claim 1, CHALLITA teaches: A method of induction welding a roofing membrane onto a roof deck (CHALLITA teaches a method of induction welding a roofing membrane onto a roof [Abstract].), comprising: (a) placing an insulation layer onto a roof deck (CHALLITA teaches playing an insulation layer onto a roof [Col. 4, lines 14-18; Fig. 14].); (b) securing roofing anchor plates onto the insulation layer, wherein the roofing plates are covered with a hot-melt adhesive (CHALLITA teaches securing anchor plate (220) above the insulation material, wherein the roofing plates (220) are covered with heat-activated adhesive (230) [Col. 4, lines 18-22].); (c) placing a roofing membrane over the roofing anchor plates (CHALLITA teaches placing a roofing membrane (240) over the roofing anchor plates (220) [Col. 4, lines 22-24].), . . . ; and then (d) applying induction heating to the anchor plates so as to cause the metallic substance to heat and turn into the adhesive such that the adhesive secures the bottom layer to the anchor plate (CHALLITA teaches applying induction heating to the anchor plates and the objective is to heat the anchor plate sufficiently to activate the adhesive [Col. 4, lines 45-60]. CHALLITA teaches sufficiently heating it so that the adhesive melts and adheres to the bottom surface of the membrane layer [Col. 7, lines 31-39].). CHALLITA is silent as to: wherein the roofing membrane comprises: a top layer, a bottom layer, and a low to medium density scrim between the top and bottom layers. In the same field of endeavor, roofing membranes, OCONNER teaches a roofing membrane that comprises a top layer (12), a bottom layer (16) and a low to medium density scrim (13) between the top and bottom layers [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CHALLITA, in order to avoid delamination [0005]. Regarding claim 2, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the low to medium density scrim has a fiber density of five or less strands per inch (OCONNER teaches the scrim can include from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the machine direction and from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the cross-machine direction per inch [0024], meeting the claimed range.). Regarding claim 3, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the low to medium density scrim has a fiber density of five to eight strands per inch (OCONNER teaches the scrim can include from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the machine direction and from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the cross-machine direction per inch [0024], meeting the claimed range.). Regarding claim 4, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the low to medium density scrim density scrim has a fiber density between 3x3 and 8x8 strands of yarn per inch (OCONNER teaches the scrim can include from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the machine direction and from about 1 to about 10 yarns in the cross-machine direction per inch [0024], meeting the claimed range.). Regarding claim 8, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the scrim is knitted (OCONNER teaches the scrim may be knitted [0023].). Regarding claim 9, CHALLITA teaches: wherein the scrim is laid scrim (CHALLITA teaches the membrane (240) is laid over the anchor plate (220) [Col. 4, lines 20-23].). Regarding claim 10, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the scrim is knitted as a Weft Inserted Warp Knit, an I-knit or Pillar-knit (OCONNER teaches the scrim is a warp knit weft inserted scrim [0023].). Regarding claim 11, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the yarn weight of the scrim is 1,000 to 2,500 denier (OCONNER teaches the yarns generally are about 250 to about 2,500 denier [0026], meeting the claimed range.). Regarding claim 12, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the yarn weight of the scrim is 1,300 to 2,000 denier (OCONNER teaches the yarns generally are about 250 to about 2,500 denier [0026], overlapping the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). Regarding claim 13, OCONNER further teaches: wherein the yarn weight of the scrim is 1,500 denier (OCONNER teaches the yarns generally are about 250 to about 2,500 denier [0026], overlapping the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challita et al. (U.S. 10,925,124), hereinafter CHALLITA, and O’Conner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0148250), hereinafter OCONNER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swanson, Jr. (U.S. 5,693,407), hereinafter SWANSON. Regarding claim 5, CHALLITA and OCONNER teach all of the claimed limitations but are silent as to: wherein the low density scrim covers less than 40% of the contact area between the top and bottom layers. In the same field of endeavor, scrims, SWANSON teaches covering about 10 to about 25 percent of the surface area [Col. 3, lines 7-13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CHALLITA and OCONNER, by having the scrim cover less than 40% of the area of the layers, a suggested by SWANSON, in order to ensure light rays passing through [Col. 3, lines 7-13]. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Challita et al. (U.S. 10,925,124), hereinafter CHALLITA, and O’Conner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0148250), hereinafter OCONNER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Douglas et al. (U.S. 2007/0194482), hereinafter DOUGLAS. Regarding claim 6, CHALLITA and OCONNER teach all of the claimed limitations but are silent as to: wherein the low to medium density scrim is made of PET. In the same field of endeavor, scrims and roofing, DOUGLAS teaches the scrim material being made of PET [0065]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CHALLITA and OCONNER, by having the scrim be made of PET, a suggested by DOUGLAS, in order to have a sufficient tensile strength to resist tearing [0065]. Regarding claim 7, CHALLITA and OCONNER teach all of the claimed limitations but are silent as to: wherein the top and bottom layers are made of one of: TPO, EPDM or PVC. In the same field of endeavor, roofing, DOUGLAS teaches the top layer being made of TPO [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify CHALLITA and OCONNER, by having the top layer made of TPO, a suggested by DOUGLAS, in order to be easier to install and less expensive [0011]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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. /C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748