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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2005/0255305 to Jo in view of and WO-2016/102278 to Bercx.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12 and 20-25,
Jo teaches an elongate profiled object having a rectangular cross section, the object comprising a peripheral wall forming a hollow profile extending in a longitudinal direction, wherein at least part of the peripheral wall is provided with a reinforcement layer on the peripheral wall and extending in at least the longitudinal direction of the elongate profiled object (Jo, abstract, fig. 1-14). Jo teaches that the reinforcement layer comprises a laminate of tapes formed of a first polyolefin thermoplastic composition surrounding at least one glass fiber and the profiled object comprising a second polyolefin composition (Id., paragraph [0019]-[0027], claim 17, claim 24, claim 30). Jo teaches that the reinforcement layer may comprise a matrix material and a non-woven fibrous region of continuous fiber substantially aligned with the length of the composite which would necessarily meet the limitations of the non-woven fibrous region being substantially equal to the width and length of the fiber reinforced composite (Id., paragraph [0020]). Jo teaches an additional layer of thermoplastic film such as polyolefin disposed over the reinforcement layer (Id., claim 17).
Jo does not appear to teach the thickness of the reinforcement layer. It should be noted that the thickness of the reinforcement layer is a result effective variable. As the thickness of the reinforcement layer increases, the material exhibits greater strength and rigidity at the expense of increased weight, bulk and cost. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the thickness of the reinforcement layer, such as within the claimed range of at least 0.6mm and at most 3.0 mm, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the reinforcement layer in order to achieve the desired balance between strength and weight/cost.
Jo does not appear to teach the inclusion of a flame retardant. However, Bercx teaches a flame retardant long glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composition for use in the manufacture of articles (Bercx, abstract, page 1, lines 4-14, page 15- page 16). Bercx teaches that the flame retardant comprises an organic phosphate and an organic phosphoric acid in a ratio from 1:0.01 to 1:2 and 2-10% of zinc oxide (Id., page 7, lines 1-19). Bercx teaches that the glass fibers are sheathed continuous multifilament strands, an impregnating agent (Id., page 8, line 5- page 13, line 2). Bercx teaches that the composition provides improved mechanical properties and flame retardancy (Id., page 4, lines 28-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of Jo and to include within the first and/or second polymer material, the flame retardant, glass fiber containing resin composition of Bercx, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite having improved strength and flame retardancy.
Regarding Claim 3
The prior art combination does not teach the coefficient of variance and mean relative fiber area coverage. However, it should be noted that the COV and RFAC are result effective variables. As the COV decreases, and or the RFAC increases, the material exhibits improved uniformity and predictability of physical properties at the expense of manufacturing complexity and cost. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the RFAC and COV since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the RFAC and COV in order to form a conventional composite having a desired uniformity and predictability of physical properties relative to manufacturing complexity and cost.
Regarding Claim 10
The prior art combination does not teach the thickness of the outer polymeric film layer. However, it should be noted that the thickness of the outer polymeric film is a result effective variable. As the thickness of the polymeric film increases, the material exhibits improved abrasion and wear resistance at the expense of weight and cost. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the thickness of the polymeric film since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness in order to form a conventional composite having a desired abrasion resistance and wear resistance relative to cost and weight.
Regarding Claim 11
Regarding the flame retardancy of the object, although the prior art does not disclose the flame retardancy according to EN13823:2014, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jo does not teach that the reinforcement layer is not on the peripheral wall as evidenced by fig. 6. Applicant further argues that Jo does not teach a thermoplastic film provided over the tape or laminate of tapes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jo teaches many different configurations and placements of the reinforcement layer. For example, fig. 9 depicts an elongated profiled object, a reinforcement layer comprising a tape or a laminate of tapes on the peripheral wall of said elongated profiled object and a thermoplastic polymer film provided over the tape or laminate of tapes (Jo, fig. 9).
Applicant argues that a thickness below 0.5 mm results in failure in the SBI test. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although there is a benefit to flame retardance when increasing the thickness of the composite, this is not unexpected as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that a larger thickness, with or without flame retardant, would provide increased flame protection and insulative properties.
Applicant argues that although a larger thickness improves flame resistance it also increases cost. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly to the improvement in flame resistance addressed above, increasing cost is a commonly known and understood consequence when increasing the amount of material used such as by increasing the thickness.
Applicant argues that adding the flame retardant to the second thermoplastic composition brings about an unexpected technical effect of improved flame resistance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is well known and expected that increasing the amount of flame retardant such as by providing it in an additional layer would result in improved flame resistance.
Applicant argues that Jo only teaches heterogenous combinations of thermoplastic resins and not teach that both resins are polyolefin. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Jo specifically teaches a polyolefin first and second thermoplastic composition such as polypropylene and polyethylene and specifically that utilizing these resins improves compatibility (Jo, paragraph [0027],claims 17, 24 and 30).
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights