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. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is not clear what is being referred to by the limitation “having a boiling” in line 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Asuncion et al, WO 2017/132156, (equivalent to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0031808 which is relied on for paragraph numbers) in view of Lundgard, U.S. Patent No. 6,174,427.
Asuncion discloses a thermosetting molding compound. The compound includes a crosslinkable polyester resin as the thermosetting resin. See paragraph 0021. With regard to the claims as amended, the composition can further comprise a styrenic monomer which is an ethylenically unsaturated monomer as claimed. See paragraph 0023. The composition can comprise a free radical initiator containing either a peroxide or azo group in the claimed amounts. See paragraph 0023. Since the same initiator is present in the same amounts, there is a reasonable basis to expect that the initiator would produce the same amount of decomposition products which would have the claimed boiling point as claimed in claim 1. The styrene is present in an amount such as to not produce volatiles. See paragraph 0023. The thermosetting resin is polymerized by free radical polymerization. See paragraph 0024. The compound can further comprise hollow glass microspheres in amounts of 0-80 wt percent. See paragraph 0025. The compound can further comprise carbon fibers. The fibers are present in amounts of 0-80 wt percent. See paragraph 0026. The compound can further comprise a low profile additive such as polystyrene, polyethylene, in amounts of 0-50 total weight percent. See paragraph 0028. The structure can be coated to produce a class A coating which would appear to meet the limitations of claims 9-11 and Asuncion does not appear to require a primer layer.
Asuncion teaches that the low profile additive package can include polyacrylates, but fails to explicitly disclose polymethacrylate.
However, Lundgard discloses an article comprising a thermosetting resin with an electrostatic coating. See col. 1, lines 4-10. Suitable thermosetting resins include polyesters. See col. 2 , lines 55-62. The structure can include styrene as a crosslinking agent. See col. 2, lines 63-65. The structure can include a low profile additive such as polyvinyl acetate, saturated polyesters, polystyrene, polyacrylates, polymethacrylates and saturated polyester urethanes. See col. 3, lines 1-18. The compound can further include hollow glass microspheres. See col. 3, line 42. The structure can further include glass fibers. The fabricated structure can be coated with an e-coating. See col. 5, lines 14-29.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed polymethacrylate instead of the acrylate in Asuncion in view of the teaching of Lundgard of the suitability of polymethacrylates for use as a low profile additive.
Asuncion teaches a free radical initiator containing either a peroxide or azo group in amounts of 0.1-3 total weight percent. See paragraph 0023.
Asuncion teaches a class A finish, which is the same as a blister free finish. See paragraph 0029.
Asuncion does not disclose that the structure emits less than 250 ppm of volatiles after heating to 185 degrees C at a rate of 14 degrees C per minute and held for 1 minute, however, since Asuncion discloses the same composition made by free radical polymerization with a low styrene monomer content so as not to produce volatiles, it is reasonable to expect that the composition of Asuncion would necessarily meet the claimed limitation regarding decomposition products and emission of volatiles.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asuncion in view of Lundgard, U.S. Patent No. 6,174,427 as set forth above, and further in view of Guha et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0376350.
Asuncion differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the glass microspheres include a silane coating.
However, Guha teaches applying a silane to glass microspheres which are used in thermosetting resin compounds in order to improve bonding between the microspheres and the matrix resin. See entire document, especially paragraphs 0003, 0006.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a silane coating in order to improve bonding between the microspheres and the resin in Asuncion.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asuncion in view of Lundgard, U.S. Patent No. 6,174,427 as set forth above, and further in view of Guzauskas, U.S. Patent No. 6,103,779.
Asuncion differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose incorporating thickening agents.
However, Guzauskas disclose that is was known to use alkaline earth thickeners in thermosetting resins used for sheet molding compounds. See col. 2, lines 22-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated alkaline earth thickeners as taught by Guzauskas in the composition of Asuncion in order to provide a composition having the desired viscosity.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Asuncion does not teach the same styrene monomer but instead teaches a styrene monomer covalently bonded to graphene oxide and that the claims as amended exclude the graphene oxide.
However, a monomer is a molecular that can be bonded to other identical molecules to form a polymer. The fact that the monomer is covalently bonded to graphene oxide does not make the monomer into something other than a monomer. A styrene monomer covalently bonded to graphene oxide would still be a styrene monomer. The instant claims do not preclude graphite being present. The claims recite “an ethylenically unsaturated monomer selected from the group consisting of: styrene,…” The styrene monomer of Asuncion meets the limitation of claim 1.
Applicant argues that the combination of reference is wholly silent regarding a free radical initiator containing either a peroxide or azo group present in amounts of from 0.1-3 total weight percent, wherein the initiator contributes less than 100 ppm. However, Asuncion teaches the claimed free radical initiator in the same amounts of 0.1-3 total weight percent at paragraph 0023. Therefore, since the same materials are used in the same amounts, there is a reasonable basis to expect that these materials would also have the claimed contribution of contributing less than 100 ppm of decomposition products, each with at least one decomposition product with a boiling point of between 160-210 degrees C, since like materials must have like properties and the composition of Asuncion is also used to form cured and blister free articles.
With regard to the combination of Lundgren and Asuncion, Applicant argues that if both Lundgren and Asuncion teach polyacrylates, why would one of ordinary skill then substituted polymethacrylates. However, Lundgren teaches that both polyacrylates and polymethacrylates are useful. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
With regard to claim 3, Applicant argues that the silane coating would increase volatiles. However, there is nothing currently on the record to support this assertion. Additionally, since the silane coating also enhances bonding, the person of ordinary skill would have a rationale to add the silane coating.
With regard to claim 7 asserts the arguments which were set forth with regard to claim 1 which are answered above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789