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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 13-14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “adding at least one component of matrix material” in line 12, and then recites “adding at least one component of matrix material” in line 23. It is unclear whether the second recitation is a double positive recitation or whether it is for a different component of matrix material.
Claim 14 recites “the at least one component of matrix material” in the first and second lines. It is unclear which at least one component of the matrix material Applicant is referring, whether it is the one recited in line 12 or line 23 of claim 13.
Claim 18 recites “the at least one component of matrix material” in the first and second lines. It is unclear which at least one component of the matrix material Applicant is referring, whether it is the one recited in line 12 or line 23 of claim 13.
Claim 21 recites “the at least one component of matrix material” in the second to last line. It is unclear which at least one component of the matrix material Applicant is referring, whether it is the one recited in line 12 or line 23 of claim 13.
Correction is required for each rejection.
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.
Claims 13-18, 22-23, 35-39 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santiso, III et al., US 5,034,256 in view of Bilgram et al., US 2004/0157022 A1; Newton, US 4,662,777; and Cowan, US 3,502,171.
Regarding claim 13, Santiso teaches a high strength, light-weight molded composite panel and discloses using an open-faced mold which has a mold cavity, placing a top reinforcement layer (33), along a bottom surface of the mold cavity, the top reinforcement layer having an outer surface facing the bottom of the mold cavity and an inner surface facing the mold cavity; placing an edge reinforcement layer (15), along at least one edge of the mold cavity, such that a first portion of the edge reinforcement layer overlaps a portion of the inner surface of the top reinforcement and second portion of the edge reinforcement extends out of the mold cavity (see the figure; column 2 lines 42-45 and column 4 lines 43-52); adding at least one component of a matrix material (24; foaming adhesive) into the mold cavity so that at least that at least a portion of the edge reinforcement layer and the top reinforcement layer are within the at least one component of matrix material (column 4 lines 8-29; foaming adhesive is used to bond the top reinforcement layer 33 and edge reinforcement layer 15); placing a bottom reinforcement layer (30), on top of the at least one component of the matrix material; and folding the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer toward the mold cavity (folded second portion of the edge reinforcement is shown in the figure).
While Santiso shows the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer overlapping at least a portion of the inner surface of the bottom reinforcement layer rather than an outer surface of the bottom reinforcement layer, Santiso additionally discloses regarding the upper and lower composite panels 30, 33 that the number of plies and close-out plies 15, 36 and the placement with respect to each other may vary to suit the application (column 3 lines 47-50). Additionally, this appears to be merely a matter of rearranging of parts and is a matter of obviousness. It has been held that rearrangement of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer overlaps the bottom reinforcement layer and are bonded together, it does not appear to matter whether the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer contacts the outer surface or the inner surface of the bottom reinforcement layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santiso to have the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer overlap at least a portion of the outer surface of the bottom reinforcement layer based on design choice and Santiso’s suggestion.
While the resulting combination discloses filling the voids of the mold with curable foaming adhesives but fails to disclose concrete, Bilgram teaches a method of molding a panel and discloses filling a flowable, curable polymer concrete from bottom to top and curing in place ([0039], [0041]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to substitute the foaming adhesives as the bonding ingredient with polymer concrete in view of Bilgram’s disclosure as discussed above for an alternate curable component of matrix material which fills the voids and bonds the structural elements together. The resulting combination includes the method step of adding at least one component of matrix material into the mold cavity so that at least the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer and the bottom reinforcement layer are within the at least one component of matrix material since the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer has been folded towards the mold cavity and the mold cavity is filled bottom to top with polymer concrete.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose forming a vault cover, Newton teaches a composite vault cover which is formed by molding and discusses the need to provide a lightweight composite cover with structural strength (column 1 lines 20-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the resulting combination by forming a high strength, light-weight molded composite panel to be used to form a composite vault cover since it has been held that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The resulting combination yields a continuous concrete mass (as modified with Bilgram) forms the cover when the at least one component of matrix material in the mold cavity hardens.
While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that any of the layers are wetted, Santiso discloses using foaming adhesive. Cowan teaches a composite mat and discloses that a high temperature resin adhesive (which is a liquid that hardens after curing) is a known alternative to a foam adhesive (column 4 lines 43-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the foaming adhesive of the resulting combination to be a high temperature resin adhesive in view of Cowan’s disclosure that they are known alternatives. The resulting combination yields the limitations in the last clause since the resin adhesive would wet the layers (the orientations of layers as claimed are the result of the method steps from the resulting combination) and form a bond when hardened.
While Santiso discloses that the edge reinforcement layer (15) and top and bottom reinforcement layers (33 and 30) are of a woven fiberglass cloth (column 3 lines 31-32 and column 3 line 67 through column 4 line 2) but fails to explicitly disclose quadraxial fabric, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 8/1/2024 that a fiberglass fabric comprising a quadraxial fabric is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fiberglass cloth/fabric of the resulting combination to comprise quadraxial fabric since it is a known alternative structural fabric and is commonly available. The resulting combination yields the quadraxial fabric having fibers aligned in different directions since that is the nature of a quadraxial fabric, which provides strength and ease of conformity in four different directions, and yields the result of when tensile forces are applied to a bottom surface of the vault cover the tensile forces are communicated to at least one edge and through a thickness of the vault cover.
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination includes the at least one component of matrix material comprising a thermoset polymer (polymer concrete comprising neat resin; Bilgram’s [0039]) as a first component. Since Bilgram discloses that the polymer concrete comprises sand filler and that the sand is preferably silica sand ([0039]), the resulting combination includes a filler as a second component.
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination from claim 14 includes the thermoset polymer comprising a polymer resin.
Regarding claim 16, since Bilgram discloses that the neat resin of the polymer concrete can be a vinyl ester resin ([0036]), the resulting combination includes the limitation claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the resulting combination from claim 14 includes the filler comprising silica sand.
Regarding claim 18, the resulting combination includes the at least one component of the matrix material comprising a mixture of polymer cement and a filler (Bilgram’s [0039]). Regarding the steps of adding a first portion of the mixture followed by folding the second portion followed by adding a second portion of the mixture, the limitations of a first portion and a second portion of the mixture with matrix material are considered to be towards the beginning of the addition of the mixture with matrix material and towards the end of the addition of the mixture with matrix material, and it is obvious to ensure that the mixture with matrix material infiltrates at least the top reinforcement layer, the edge reinforcement layer, and the bottom reinforcement layer since the mixture with matrix material is for bonding to ensure complete bonding of the layers. Additionally, these steps are obvious based on common sense as a way to spread the mixture between the top and bottom to prevent too much in one area and not enough in another area. The resulting combination yields the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 22-23, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 8/1/2024 that providing an indicia on an interior surface of a mold cavity to yield an imprint is old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to provide a feature in the form of an indicia on an interior surface of the mold cavity since vault covers imprinted with information (such as vault type or municipality) are old and well-known.
Regarding claim 35, the resulting combination from claim 13 includes the limitations claimed; the limitations of a first portion and a second portion of the at least one component of a matrix material are considered to be towards the beginning of the addition of the at least one component of a matrix material and towards the end of the addition of the at least one component of a matrix material, and it is obvious to ensure that the matrix material infiltrates at least the first portion of the edge reinforcement layer and the second portion of the edge reinforcement layer and the bottom reinforcement layer since the matrix material is for bonding to ensure complete bonding of the layers. Additionally, these steps are obvious based on common sense as a way to spread the mixture between the top and bottom to prevent too much in one area and not enough in another area.
Regarding claims 36-39, the resulting combination from claims 14-17 include the limitations claimed.
Regarding claim 42, the resulting combination includes the limitation since each of the top reinforcement layer, the bottom reinforcement layer and the edge reinforcement layer are a fiberglass fabric comprising a quadraxial fabric.
Regarding claim 43, the resulting combination from claim 42 from which claim 43 depends includes the top, bottom, and edge reinforcement layers comprising a quadraxial fabric.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santiso in view of Bilgram, Newton, and Cowan as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Kluppel et al., US 4,720,244.
Regarding claim 21, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the method steps claimed, Kluppel discloses a mold with a port to permit resin to be injected (column 5 lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include the method step of injecting the at least one component of matrix material into the cavity via an inlet port in view of Kluppel’s disclosure as a known way to fill a mold. Kluppel further discloses that the mold has a top lid (cover) and another port in an upper mold member to be able to vent air forced from the annular space [which is similar to the cavity] during the injection of the resin (column 5 lines 17-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to place a top lid over the mold cavity and apply a negative pressing to the cavity through an outlet port in view of Kluppel’s disclosure to close the mold and to allow air from the cavity to vent.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santiso in view of Bilgram, Newton and Cowan as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Nadeau, US 4,930,219.
Regarding claim 24, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 8/1/2024 that vault covers with a curvilinear shape are old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant’s traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vault cover of the resulting combination to have a curvilinear shape if desired based on design choice. The resulting combination includes an edge of the vault having a curvilinear shape. While the resulting combination fails to disclose the method steps claimed, Nadeau discloses that it is known to trim off excess fabric and notch in order to allow curved seams to lie flat and smooth, free from puckers and bulges (column 1 lines 35-39). Since the resulting combination includes the edge reinforcement comprising cloth/fabric (quadraxial fabric), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to notch the edge reinforcement which comprises fabric and fit the notched edge reinforcement into the mold cavity to conform to the curvilinear shape in view of Nadeau’s disclosure since notching is a known way to remove excess fabric from curves to prevent puckers and bulges.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santiso in view of Bilgram, Newton, and Cowan as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Nunnery, US 2018/0163361 A1.
Regarding claim 25, while the resulting combination fails to disclose embedding an RFID device in the matrix, Nunnery teaches a composite manhole cover with in-molded components and discloses the inclusion of an RFID (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to embed an RFID in the matrix material in view of Nunnery’s disclosure to be able to provide information to the municipality or owner of the vault/vault cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13-18, 21-25, 35-39, and 42-43 have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection above has been amended to address the claims as amended.
Applicant does not provide arguments for the dependent claims, only relying on the arguments to independent claims 13 and 35.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights