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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 20, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed July 16, 2024 with respect to the rejections over Reichenberger in view of Kawase (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully and are considered persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require wherein an essential oil is homogenously distributed in the casting composition, a feature towards which Kawase is silent. Accordingly, the rejections in view of Reichenberger modified by Kawase are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, additional new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Takata (US20040056571, hereinafter referred to as “Takata”), Miltz et al. (US20080220036, hereinafter referred to as “Miltz”), Cihangir et al. (WO 2019233822, hereinafter referred to as “Cihangir”), Reichenberger et al. (US20080132607, hereinafter referred to as “Reichenberger”).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are considered fully responded to within the comments above and the new grounds of rejection below.
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 1-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US20040056571, hereinafter referred to as “Takata”) in view of Miltz et al. (US20080220036, hereinafter referred to as “Miltz”) and further in view of Cihangir et al. (WO 2019233822, hereinafter referred to as “Cihangir”).
As to Claim 1: Takata teaches a molded shelf assembly which is suitable for places where water is used including a bathroom, kitchen, or lavatory ([0082]) (thus reading on the claimed sanitary article which may be a worktop according to the instant specification pg. 3, ln. 17-22. While Takata does not explicitly define the shelf as a worktop, it is the position of the Office that the shelf of Takata may form a structure that is substantially the same as the claimed worktop (i.e., a flat surface for working on, especially in a kitchen) see Fig. 4, Fig. 15, Fig. 17 of Takata). Takata further teaches that the shelf body may contain an antibacterial agent applied or kneaded into the resin which is molded into the shelf body ([0080]-[0082]) (i.e., having an antibacterial or antimicrobial surface). Takata further teaches a molding resin which may be chosen from various polymeric materials ([0059]) having filler materials dispersed therein, including, inter alia, charcoal or activated charcoal ([0082]), which reads on the claimed filler particles (wherein charcoal is construed to be a carbonaceous particulate additive/filler). Takata further teaches that a suitable amount of various essential oil extracts or combinations thereof may be included in a molding resin which is molded into a shelf body ([0082]), which reads on the claimed “an essential oil homogenously distributed in the casting compound.”
Takata is silent towards wherein the fraction of the essential oil is in the range of 0.05 to 0.6 wt%.
Miltz teaches an antimicrobial packaging material containing 0.05% to 1.5% by weight of a natural essential oil which is blended with one or more of polymers resins (Abstract). Takata and Miltz are considered analogous art because they are both directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polymeric articles having antimicrobial properties comprising essential oils. This range taught by Miltz for an amount of an essential oil additive overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range taught by Miltz for an amount of the essential oil taught by Takata, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Miltz suggests, that the overlapping portion of the range is known within the art to impart antimicrobial properties to polymeric articles, a property explicitly sought for the essential oil-containing polymeric shelf assembly of Takata.
Takata is silent towards wherein the essential oil is peppermint oil.
Cihangir teaches an antibacterial/antimicrobial thermoplastic polymer composition (Abstract) comprising at least one antimicrobial essential oil selected from, inter alia, thyme oil, peppermint oil, rosemary oil, sage oil, and clove oil ([0013]). Takata and Cihangir are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polymeric articles having antimicrobial properties comprising essential oils. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select peppermint oil as the essential oil within the shelf assembly of Takata and the motivation would have been that Cihangir teaches that peppermint oil is an equivalent to essential oil species explicitly identified by Takata (e.g., rosemary oil, sage oil, and clove oil, [0082] of Takata, [0013] of Cihangir) known within the art for addition to polymeric articles for the same purpose of imparting antimicrobial activity ([0012] of Cihangir). Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.06 II).
As to Claim 2: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata further teaches that a suitable amount of various essential oil extracts or combinations thereof may be included in a molding resin which is molded into a shelf body ([0082]), which reads on the claimed further essential oil.
As to Claim 3: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 2 (supra).
Takata further teaches that a suitable amount of various essential oil extracts or combinations thereof selected from at least cinnamon, clove, thyme, oregano, or rosemary oil may be included in a molding resin which is molded into a shelf body ([0082]), which reads on the claimed further essential oil.
As to Claim 19: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata teaches a molded shelf assembly which is suitable for places where water is used including a bathroom, kitchen, or lavatory ([0082]). While Takata does not explicitly define the shelf as a worktop, it is the position of the Office that the shelf of Takata may form a structure that is substantially the same as the claimed worktop (i.e., a flat surface for working on, especially in a kitchen) see Fig. 4, Fig. 15, Fig. 17 of Takata.
Claims 5-16 and 23-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US20040056571, hereinafter referred to as “Takata”) in view of Miltz et al. (US20080220036, hereinafter referred to as “Miltz”) and further in view of Cihangir et al. (WO 2019233822, hereinafter referred to as “Cihangir”) and Reichenberger et al. (US20080132607, hereinafter referred to as “Reichenberger”).
As to Claims 5 and 23-26: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata does not teach the composition of the polymeric resin which is molded into the shelf body.
Reichenberger teaches a three-dimensional molding comprising a cured reaction mixture (i.e., cured casting compound), said reaction mixture comprising a binder solution (i.e., polymeric binder), and inorganic particulate filler (Abstract). Reichenberger further teaches that the molding may be a three-dimensional shape, including kitchen and bathroom working surfaces (Claim 17, [0002]). Reichenberger further teaches that the binder solution comprises 10 to 50% by weight based on the reaction mixture (Abstract), and further comprises particulate inorganic filler between 55 and 85 wt% ([0016]). Takata and Reichenberger are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polymer/resin-based molded bodies suitable for kitchen/bathroom surfaces. The ranges taught by Reichenberger overlaps with the claimed ranges. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Reichenberger suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for binder and inorganic filler in molded articles suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom worktop applications. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the resin of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a variety of synthetic resins are suitable for forming a molded body in accordance with the invention and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising filler particles which reads on the claimed polymeric binder and filler particles. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
As to Claims 6 and 27: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata does not teach the composition of the polymeric resin which is molded into the shelf body.
Reichenberger teaches a three-dimensional molding comprising a cured reaction mixture (i.e., cured casting compound), said reaction mixture comprising a binder solution (i.e., polymeric binder), and inorganic particulate filler (Abstract). Reichenberger further teaches that the molding may be a three-dimensional shape, including kitchen and bathroom working surfaces (Claim 17, [0002]). Reichenberger further teaches that the binder comprises monomers including methyl methacrylate and a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) dissolved therein (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising monomers including methyl methacrylate and a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) dissolved therein (Abstract). Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
As to Claims 7-8 and 28-31: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata does not teach the composition of the polymeric resin which is molded into the shelf body.
Reichenberger teaches a three-dimensional molding comprising a cured reaction mixture (i.e., cured casting compound), said reaction mixture comprising a binder solution (i.e., polymeric binder), and inorganic particulate filler (Abstract). Reichenberger further teaches that the molding may be a three-dimensional shape, including kitchen and bathroom working surfaces (Claim 17, [0002]). Reichenberger teaches that the molding further comprises a crosslinking agent (i.e., crosslinker) which may be trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate ([0013]). Reichenberger further teaches an exemplary formulation comprising a crosslinking agent in an amount of 27.62 wt%, which is within the claimed range (Formulation 3, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin including a crosslinker of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising a crosslinker in an amount within the claimed range. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
As to Claim 9: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Takata does not teach wherein the filler particles are selected from the claimed group.
Reichenberger teaches a three-dimensional molding comprising a cured reaction mixture (i.e., cured casting compound), said reaction mixture comprising a binder solution (i.e., polymeric binder), and inorganic particulate filler (Abstract). Reichenberger further teaches that the molding may be a three-dimensional shape, including kitchen and bathroom working surfaces (Claim 17, [0002]). Reichenberger further teaches that the inorganic filler may be silica sand ([0016]) which reads on the claimed SiO2 ([0017]), having a particle size from 0.05 to 0.3 mm ([0045]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filler particle such as silica having a particle size within the claimed range within the composition of Takata and the motivation would have been that Reichenberger teaches that addition of such a filler is known within the art of polymeric molded bodies suitable for use in bathroom or kitchen applications to provide a balance of tear resistance and visual properties of the molded article ([0004], [0012] of Reichenberger).
As to Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14: Takata, Miltz, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Neither Takata nor Reichenberger explicitly teach (a) monofunctional or polyfunctional acrylic and/or methacrylic monomers from plant or animal origin, (b) one or more polymers or copolymers from recycled material or of plant or animal origin, or (c) inorganic filler particles of natural origin. However, the instant claims are product-by-process claims. “[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) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113.
However, Reichenberger teaches monofunctional acrylic monomers including methyl methacrylate ([0014]), polyfunctional methacrylic monomers including trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate ([0013]), a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]), and an inorganic filler ([0016]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising monomers including methyl methacrylate and a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) dissolved therein (Abstract) further comprising an inorganic filler. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
There is no evidence that the source of said monomers, polymers, or inorganic fillers would materially affect the structure of the final product.
As to Claim 12: Takata, Miltz, Cihangir, and Reichenberger teach the molding of claim 10 (supra).
Neither Takata nor Reichenberger explicitly teach monofunctional and polyfunctional biomonomers. However, the instant claims are product-by-process claims. “[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) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113. Reichenberger teaches an exemplary molding comprising 76.89 wt% of methyl methacrylate (i.e., monofunctional monomer) and 27.62 wt% crosslinking agent (i.e., polyfunctional monomer ([0013])) (Fig. 4, Formulation 3), which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin including a crosslinker of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising a crosslinker in an amount within the claimed range. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07). There is no evidence that the source of said monomers would materially affect the structure of the final product.
As to Claims 15 and 35: Takata, Miltz, Cihangir, and Reichenberger teach the molding of claim 10 (supra).
Takata does not teach the composition of the polymeric resin which is molded into the shelf body.
Reichenberger further teaches monofunctional acrylic monomers including methyl methacrylate ([0014]), polyfunctional methacrylic monomers including trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate ([0013]), a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) and further teaches that ratio of polymer to monomer is between 1:1 and 1:10 ([0015]), which overlaps with the claimed weight ratio. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Reichenberger suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for a monomer-to-crosslinker ratio to achieve adequate curing or crosslinking to form molded articles suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom worktop applications. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising monomers including methyl methacrylate and a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) dissolved therein (Abstract) further comprising an inorganic filler. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
As to Claims 16 and 32: Takata, Miltz, Cihangir, and Reichenberger teach the molding of claim 9 (supra).
Takata does not teach wherein the filler particles are selected from the claimed group.
Reichenberger teaches a three-dimensional molding comprising a cured reaction mixture (i.e., cured casting compound), said reaction mixture comprising a binder solution (i.e., polymeric binder), and inorganic particulate filler (Abstract). Reichenberger further teaches that the molding may be a three-dimensional shape, including kitchen and bathroom working surfaces (Claim 17, [0002]). Reichenberger further teaches that the inorganic filler may be silica sand ([0016]) which reads on the claimed SiO2 ([0017]), having a particle size from 0.05 to 0.3 mm ([0045]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a filler particle such as silica having a particle size within the claimed range within the composition of Takata and the motivation would have been that Reichenberger teaches that addition of such a filler is known within the art of polymeric molded bodies suitable for use in bathroom or kitchen applications to provide a balance of tear resistance and visual properties of the molded article ([0004], [0012] of Reichenberger).
As to Claims 33-34: Takata, Miltz, Cihangir, and Reichenberger teach the molding of claim 10 (supra).
Neither Takata nor Reichenberger explicitly teach monofunctional and polyfunctional biomonomers. However, the instant claims are product-by-process claims. “[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) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113.
Reichenberger further teaches that a crosslinking agent (i.e., a polyfunctional monomer including trimethylolpropane, [0013]) may be present in an amount of 10 to 30 wt% relative to monomer ([0013]) (i.e., methyl methacrylate, a monofunctional monomer see [0014]), which yields an overlapping ratio with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Reichenberger suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for a monomer-to-crosslinker ratio to achieve adequate curing or crosslinking to form molded articles suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom worktop applications. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the binder resin of Reichenberger to form the molded article of Takata and the motivation would have been that Takata contemplates a plurality of resins for forming a molded body suitable for use in kitchen or bathroom applications and Reichenberger teaches that it is known within the art to form molded bodies for application in kitchen or bathroom applications from a polymer binder comprising monomers including methyl methacrylate and a polymer including polymethyl methacrylate ([0014]) dissolved therein (Abstract) further comprising an inorganic filler. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
The rejections set forth below under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth in the alternative to the rejections above.
Claims 1, 2, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (JP2004049365, English translation included for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Kawase”) in view of Miltz et al. (US20080220036, hereinafter referred to as “Miltz”) and further in view of Takata (US20040056571, hereinafter referred to as “Takata”) and Cihangir et al. (WO 2019233822, hereinafter referred to as “Cihangir”).
As to Claim 1: Kawase teaches a molded kitchen panel including a sink ([0027]), wherein a mixture comprising a polymer resin ([0012]), a filler ([0012]), and an essential oil ([0010]) are molded and cured to form the kitchen panel (Example 2) (i.e., a cured casting compound of a polymeric binder and filler particles incorporate therein). Kawase further teaches an exemplary molding that comprises 2 parts by weight of hinokitol, which reads on the claimed essential oil (Example 2), equal to about 0.7873 wt% of the molding.
Kawase is silent towards an amount of an essential oil within the claimed range.
Miltz teaches an antimicrobial packaging material containing 0.05% to 1.5% by weight of a natural essential oil which is blended with one or more of polymers selected from at least ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymers, polyacrylates, and nylons (Abstract). Kawase and Miltz are considered analogous art because they are both directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polymeric articles comprising essential oils. This range taught by Miltz for an amount of an essential oil additive overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range taught by Miltz for an amount of the essential oil taught by Kawase, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Miltz suggests, that the overlapping portion of the range is known within the art to impart antimicrobial properties to polymeric articles (e.g., acrylate-based polymeric articles, which are taught by both Miltz (see [0011]) and Kawase ([0017]-[0018]).
Kawase teaches that the surface is coated with a substance that emits an odor (e.g., containing an essential oil) ([0041]-[0043]), but is silent towards wherein the essential oil is homogenously distributed in a casting compound.
Takata teaches a molded shelf assembly which is suitable for places where water is used including a bathroom, kitchen, or lavatory ([0082]) (thus reading on the claimed sanitary article which may be a worktop according to the instant specification pg. 3, ln. 17-22). Takata further teaches that the shelf body may contain an antibacterial agent applied to the surface ([0082]) or kneaded into the resin which is molded into the shelf body ([0082]) (i.e., having an antibacterial or antimicrobial surface). Kawase and Takata are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, molded articles comprising essential oil additives. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to alternatively disperse an essential oil additive into the polymer resin of Kawase with reasonable expectation of success based on the teaching of Takata that incorporating essential oils either as a surface coating or as a dispersed component within the molded resin are both known within the art to produce molded materials having fragrance or antibacterial character ([0081] of Takata).
Kawase is silent towards wherein the essential oil is peppermint oil.
Cihangir teaches an antibacterial/antimicrobial thermoplastic polymer composition (Abstract) comprising at least one antimicrobial essential oil selected from, inter alia, thyme oil, peppermint oil, rosemary oil, sage oil, and clove oil ([0013]). Kawase and Cihangir are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, polymeric articles comprising essential oil additives. Cihangir provides evidence that thyme oil, peppermint oil, rosemary oil, cinnamon oil, and clove oil ([0013]) are known essential oils used as additives to polymer materials for kitchen appliance articles ([0038]). Cihangir further teaches that these natural essential oils exhibit antibacterial activity due to the presence of biologically active terpenes in their structure ([0011]). Thus, while Kawase does not explicitly teach the common names of the essential oils, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try at least the claimed peppermint oil with reasonable expectation of success because Kawase teaches that essential oils having terpene structures are useable within cured molded articles ([0016] of Kawase) and Cihangir teaches that the claimed essential oils necessarily have terpene structures and are derive their utility due to their terpene structure ([0011] of Cihangir).
Kawase is silent towards the antimicrobial or antibacterial properties of the surface.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Reichenberger modified by Kawase. However, the references teach all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount (e.g., “essential oils can be incorporated into a casting composition of this kind, and give the casting composition a corresponding antibacterial (to counter bacteria) and/or antimicrobial (additionally to counter viruses and fungi) quality” page 6, lines 7-10 of the instant specification). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. antibacterial/antimicrobial activity, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
As to Claim 2: Kawase, Miltz, Takata, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Kawase further teaches that the molding includes one or more natural essential oils ([0010]).
As to Claim 19: Kawase, Miltz, Takata, and Cihangir teach the molding of claim 1 (supra).
Kawase teaches a molded kitchen panel including a sink ([0027]), wherein a mixture comprising a polymer resin ([0012]), a filler ([0012]), and an essential oil ([0010]) are molded and cured to form the kitchen panel (Example 2).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights