Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/507,365

MOLDED PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAKING MOLDED PRODUCTS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 21, 2021
Examiner
LEE, EDMUND H
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Brunswick Corporation
OA Round
6 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
790 granted / 1143 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
73.4%
+33.4% vs TC avg
§102
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1143 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1,3-7,9-11, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/247549 in view of Hordis et al (USPN 5601049). Regarding claim 1, WO2020/247549 teaches: 1. A method of making a molded product, the method comprising: obtaining a mold having a cavity defined by interior surfaces (WO2020/247549; example 3); applying a gelcoat into the mold (WO2020/247549; example 3); at least partially curing the gelcoat within the mold (WO2020/247549; example 3); dispensing a viscous polymeric material into the mold after the gelcoat has been applied into the mold, wherein the polymeric material is a thermoplastic (WO2020/247549; example 3); and curing the polymeric material within the mold to polymerize the polymeric material to make the molded product, the polymeric material remaining a thermoplastic after curing to make the molded product (WO2020/247549; example 3); wherein the polymeric material when cured provides sufficient strength for the molded product without a frame structure therein such that at least one cross-section through the molded product comprises only the polymeric material and the at least partially cured gelcoat (WO2020/247549; pg 1:14-16; pg 13:1-2; example 3; the composite can be a boat hull). However, WO2020/247549 does not teach the polymeric material is sandwiched between the at least partially cured gelcoat. Hordis et al teach a boat hull having an inner gel coat 21, an outer gelcoat 13, and layers of reinforcing material sandwiched between the gelcoats (Hordis et al: col 4:60-col 5:18; figs 2 and 2a). Since WO2020/247549 and Hordis et al are analogous with respect to boat hulls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an inner gel coat as taught by Hordis et al into the boat hull of WO2020/247549 in order to protect both sides of the boat hull. Regarding claim 3, WO2020/247549 do no teach the polymeric material is homogenous and unreinforced. Since the claimed material is well-known in the boat hull art for its reduced costs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the thermoplastic of WO2020/247549 in a homogenous and unreinforced form in order to reduce costs. Regarding claim 4, such is taught by WO2020/247549 since the thermoplastic Elium ® is based on acrylic resin (WO2020/247549; example 3). Regarding claim 5, WO2020/247549 do not teach the claimed curing time. Curing duration is well-known in the molding art as an important molding parameter and the desired duration would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Further, the claimed duration is generally well-known in the molding art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cure the thermoplastic resin of WO2020/247549 for the claimed duration in order to ensure sufficient solidification. Regarding claim 6, WO2020/247549 teaches curing to mold an untrimmed product (WO2020/247549; example 3), but does not teach trimming edges of the product to produce a molded product. Since it is well-known in the molding art to performing a finishing step like trimming on a molded product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to trim the molded product of WO2020/247549 (modified) in order to produce a high quality finished product. Regarding claim 7, WO2020/247549 does not teach the mold is formed by first and second portions having the interior surfaces, respectively, wherein the gelcoat is applied to both the first and second portions, and wherein the first and second portions are closed together after the gelcoat is cured and after the polymeric material is dispensed into the first portion. Since the claimed mold and application steps are well-known in the molding art to form a sandwiched product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the claimed mold and application steps into the process of WO2020/247549 (modified) in order to efficiently mold the boat hull of WO2020/247549 (modified). Regarding claim 9, WO2020/247549 teach curing the gelcoat by chemical initiator (WO2020/247549; example 3) but does not teach dispensing by weight the polymeric material and robotically dispensing the gelcoat. Since robotic application of materials are well-known in the molding art for its accuracy and efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispense by weight the thermoplastic resin of WO2020/247549 and robotically dispense the gelcoat layer of WO2020/247549 in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency of the molding process. Regarding claim 10, WO2020/247549 do not teach the claimed color of the gelcoat and the polymeric material. It should be noted the use of specific material in a method claim is mere obvious matter of choice dependent on the desired final product. Since the claimed materials are well-known in the composite and vehicle arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the same colored materials in the process of WO2020/247549 (modified) to form diverse products having desired properties. Regarding claim 11, WO2020/247549 do not teach the claimed thickness. It should be noted the specific thickness of a product in a method of molding claim is mere obvious matter of choice dependent on the desired final product. Since the claimed thickness is well-known in the boat hull art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the claimed thermoplastic material of WO2020/247549 to have the claimed thickness in order to form diverse products having desired properties. Regarding claim 21, such is taught by WO2020/247549 (WO2020/247549; pg 14:12-25; example 3). Regarding claim 22, such is taught by WO2020/247549 (WO2020/247549; example 3). Regarding claim 23, such is taught by the above combination of WO2020/247549 and Hordis et al since the boat hull of WO2020/247549 (modified) has a gelcoat on both the inner and outer surface. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/247549 in view of Graham et al (USPN 3124626). Regarding claim 20, WO2020/247549 teaches: A method of making a molded product, the method comprising: obtaining a mold having a first portion (WO2020/247549; example 3); applying a gelcoat on top of the interior surfaces (WO2020/247549; example 3); at least partially curing the gelcoat on the interior surfaces (WO2020/247549; example 3); dispensing a viscous, thermoplastic, polymeric material onto the gelcoat of the first portion of the mold, the dispensed polymeric material having a thickness (WO2020/247549; example 3); curing the polymeric material to polymerize the polymeric material and form an untrimmed product (WO2020/247549; example 3); removing the untrimmed product from the mold, the polymeric material of the untrimmed product remaining a thermoplastic after curing and removing from the mold (WO2020/247549; example 3); and wherein the polymeric material when cured provides sufficient strength for the molded product such that at least one cross-section through the molded product comprises only the polymeric material and the gelcoat without a frame structure therein (WO2020/247549; example 3). However, WO2020/247549 does not teach obtaining a mold having a second portion that when closed with the first portion form a cavity between interior surfaces thereof; applying a release agent onto the interior surfaces of the first portion and the second portion; dispensing the polymeric material having a thickness of at least 0.5 inches; and trimming edges of the untrimmed product to produce the molded product. Graham et al teach molding a component of a vehicle like a boat, wherein a release agent onto the interior surfaces of the first portion and the second portion (figs 5-7); and dispensing polymeric material of the core having a thickness of at least 0.5 inches (figs 5-7 and 11; tube 58 has a diameter of 5/8” and is surrounded within the core, thus the core must have a thickness of at least 0.5 inch). Since WO2020/247549 and Graham et al are analogous with respect to composite vehicle components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the release layer as taught by Graham et al and mold a substrate with a thickness of at least 0.5inch as taught by Graham et al into the process of WO2020/247549 in order to facilitate the production of a high quality vehicle component. Regarding trimming edges of the untrimmed product to produce the molded product, since it is well-known in the molding art to performing a finishing step like trimming on a molded product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to trim the molded product of WO2020/247549 in order to produce a high quality finished product. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-7,9-11, and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN1871106 teaches gelcoating a mold and then applying a core material onto the gelcoated mold. 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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM. 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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. EHL/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 21, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 21, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 19, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 13, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 13, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594725
AUTONOMOUS FABRICATION OF MECHATRONIC SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589526
GOLF BALL MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589540
MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR MOLDED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583176
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583153
OVERMOLDING SPECIALTY TOOLING AND METHODS OF MAKING FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+18.2%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1143 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month