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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 11-18 are pending in the application. Claims 3-4, 6 and 9-10 have been cancelled. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claim 1, filed on 6/23/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “7 to 25 weight percent of calcium carbonate.” Although paragraph [0078] as-filed (or [0091] as published) provides support for calcium carbonate being added to an acrylic polymer at a level from 7 to 25 weight percent "based on the level of the polymer" and "for improved adhesion to a polyester pultruded structure," the specification does not provide support for the claimed range, as claim 1 is not limited in the manner disclosed in the specification. Claims 2, 5, 7-8 and 11-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “10 to 40 weight percent of core shell impact modifiers.” While paragraph [0080] as-filed (or [0093] as published) discloses that "an amount of filler and additives in the polymer compositions of each layer" may vary from about 10% to about 40% "of the combined weight of polymer, additives and filler," the specification does not provide support for the claimed range for the core shell impact modifiers (an additive) (particularly in addition to claimed amount of the calcium carbonate filler) (see also [0077] as filed, or [0090] as published). Claims 2, 5, 7-8 and 11-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, 7-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (US 2017/0036428 A1) in view of Hughes (US 2017/0283647 A1), further in view of Crabb (WO 2018/132818 A2, see attachment).
Regrading claims 1-2 and 11, Richards teaches a multilayered pultruded structure having a weatherable cap layer over a pultruded substrate, adhered with an appropriate tie layer (Abstract). The pultruded substrate is a fiber-reinforced thermoset resin, produced by pulling a blend of fibers and the liquid resin through a die-as known in the art ([0021]). Particularly preferred thermoset resins are polyesters and polyurethane ([0023]). A cap layer or layers (one or more thermoplastic cap layers; and a thin, outermost chemical resistant layer, as claimed) is applied to tie layer on the pultruded substrate ([0050]). The cap layer(s) have a thickness of between 0.0025 and 1 mm, preferably between 0.005 and 0.5 mm ([0051]). Useful cap layer polymers include, but are not limited to styrenic-based polymers, acrylic-based polymers, polyesters, polycarbonate and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) ([0052]). In one embodiment, the acrylic-based layer is a blend of an acrylic polymer and 5 to 80 wt %, preferably 10 to 40 wt %, of a polyvinylidene fluoride polymer or copolymer thereof ([0055]).
Most preferably the acrylic polymer is a copolymer having 70 to 99.5 weight percent of methyl methacrylate units and from 0.5 to 30 weight percent of one or more C1-8 straight or branched alkyl acrylate units ([0052]). In one embodiment, the cap layer polymer has a weight average molecular weight of between 50,000 and 500,000 g/mol, and preferably from 75,000 and 150,000 g/mol, as measured by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) ([0054]).
As applied above, Richards teaches a cap layer or layers. The examiner notes that the innermost of these layers would meet the claimed limitation “one or more cap layers”, and the outermost layer would meet the claimed limitation “a thin, outermost chemical resistant layer”.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the claimed chemical resistant property would be so provided, as the reference teaches the same materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials.
Richards does not explicitly disclose wherein the (meth)acrylic resin comprises a high Tg of greater than 100° C.
However, Hughes teaches compositions and articles comprising a stress and crack resistant component comprising a thermoplastic component and an elongation component (Abstract). In one example the stress-resistant component comprises a thermoplastic component comprising (A) one or more polymer selected from the group consisting of polyesters which includes copolyesters, polycarbonates, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), poly(acrylonitrile-styrene-acrylate) (ASA), poly(acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) (ABS), poly(styrene-acrylonitrile) (SAN), cellulose esters and mixtures thereof, and (B) a polymeric elongation modifier component ([0019]). In examples, either or both the stress resistant component and the thermoplastic component(s) has a Tg ranging from 60 to 150° C. or 70 to 130° C. or 75 to 115°C ([0100]). The examiner notes that Hughes further teaches Tg ranges including from 100 to about 150° C. or from 110 to about 150° C. or from 120 to about 150° C. or from 130 to about 150° C. or from 140 to about 150° C. ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used an acrylic polymer having a Tg ranging from 60 to 150° C., or 70 to 130° C., or 75 to 115°C (e.g., from 140 to about 150°C), in order to provide a stress resistant component in the outer coating layer of an article, as suggested by Hughes (Abstract and [0099]-[0100]; also see [0019] and [0061]).
Richards further teaches that other typical additives may also be added to one or more of the tie or cap layers, including but not limited to impact modifiers, fillers or fibers, or other additives of the type used in the polymer art ([0058]). Examples of impact modifiers include, but are not limited to, core-shell particles-with either a hard or soft core, and block or graft copolymers ([0058]). Examples of fillers employed in a typical compounded polymer blend include talc, calcium carbonate, mica, matting agents, wollastonite, dolomite, glass fibers, boron fibers, carbon fibers, carbon blacks, pigments such as titanium dioxide, or mixtures thereof ([0058]). A pigment in a pigmented pultruded structure may be placed in the tie layer, and/or in one or more cap layers ([0059]).
In addition, Hughes teaches an example in which the coating component comprises from about 0 wt % to about 40 wt % of a gloss modifier component, wherein the weight percent is based on the total weight of the coating component ([0031]). The at least one optional gloss modifier component may be chosen from inorganic fillers and polymeric fillers ([0108]). Non-limiting examples of suitable inorganic fillers include talc (magnesium silicate), silica, kaolin clay, alumina and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) ([0108]).
Richards in view of Hughes does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more cap layers comprise 10 to 40 weight percent of core shell impact modifiers.
However, Crabb teaches a composition in which impact modifiers are added at from 3 to 70 weight percent, based on the weight of the formulation, and preferably from 10 to 50 weight percent (page 13, lines 8-11). Crabb also teaches that a level of pigment or dye in the composition is preferably from 0.2 to 25 weight percent (page 11, lines 23-24). Useful dyes and pigments include (among a list of others) CaCO3 (pages 11-12, lines 29-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the core-shell impact modifiers of Richards in view of Hughes in each of the cap layers (i.e., the claimed cap layer(s) and outermost chemical resistant layer) in amounts of from 3 to 70 weight percent, and preferably from 10 to 50 weight percent, based on the weight of the formulation, in order to obtain articles with good impact resistance for use in building and construction, electronics and custom sheet applications, (Crabb, see pages 12-13, lines 25-11, and page 19, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 5, Richards teaches that, in one embodiment, the cap layer polymer has a weight average molecular weight of between 50,000 and 500,000 g/mol, and preferably from 75,000 and 150,000 g/mol, as measured by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) ([0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Richards teaches that at least one tie layer is selected from the group consisting of 1) an extrudable thermoplastic tie layer that is coextrudable with at least one of the pultruded structure a) or thermoplastic cap layer c), and 2) a radiation curable coating ([0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Richards teaches that useful extrudable tie layers include, but are not limited to, thermoplastics including polyamides, copolyamides, block copolymers of polyamide and polyester; acrylic, styrenic or butadiene-based block copolymers, functionalized olefins, functionalized acrylics, polylactic acid (PLA) and ABS ([0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Crabb teaches that the composition may optionally contain one or more typical additives for polymer compositions used in usual effective amounts, including (among other possible additives) additives with specific light diffraction, light absorbing, or light reflection characteristics (page 12, lines 25-29). The amount of additives included in the polymer composition may vary from about 0% to about 70% of the combined weight of polymer, inorganic mineral oxide, and additives (page 13, lines 3-6). In addition, Hughes more specifically teaches UV absorbers ([0111]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Richards teaches that the weatherable, capped, pultruded substrate is useful as a replacement for wood and metal structures and parts ([0060]). Typical uses include: window profiles (residential and commercial), windows, doors, door profiles, fencing, decking, railings, skylight framings, commercial curtainwall used in skyscrapers ([0060]).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (US 2017/0036428 A1) in view of Hughes (US 2017/0283647 A1), further in view of Donea et al. (US 2005/0112331 A1).
Regrading claims 1-2 and 11, Richards in view of Hughes is applied in the same manner applied above.
Richards in view of Hughes does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more cap layers comprise 10 to 40 weight percent of core shell impact modifiers.
However, Donea teaches multiwall sheets (Abstract). Additives that may be added to the multiwall sheet are impact modifiers ([0115]). Impact modifiers may be used in amounts of about 0.5 to about 20 wt %, based on the total weight of the multiwall sheet ([0118]). Non-conductive, non-metallic fillers such as metal coated calcium carbonate may be dispersed into a thermoplastic polymer at loadings of about 0.001 to about 50 wt %, based on the total weight of the multi wall sheet ([0102]-[0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the core-shell impact modifiers of Richards in view of Hughes in each of the cap layers (i.e., the claimed cap layer(s) and outermost chemical resistant layer) in amounts of about 0.5 to about 20 wt % in order to obtain articles, such as separator panels in automotive assembly plants, that have high impact strength (Donea, see [0010], [0129] and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 5, Richards teaches that, in one embodiment, the cap layer polymer has a weight average molecular weight of between 50,000 and 500,000 g/mol, and preferably from 75,000 and 150,000 g/mol, as measured by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) ([0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Richards teaches that at least one tie layer is selected from the group consisting of 1) an extrudable thermoplastic tie layer that is coextrudable with at least one of the pultruded structure a) or thermoplastic cap layer c), and 2) a radiation curable coating ([0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Richards teaches that useful extrudable tie layers include, but are not limited to, thermoplastics including polyamides, copolyamides, block copolymers of polyamide and polyester; acrylic, styrenic or butadiene-based block copolymers, functionalized olefins, functionalized acrylics, polylactic acid (PLA) and ABS ([0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Donea teaches multiwall sheets that comprise UV absorbers in amounts of about 0.2 wt % to about 15 wt %, based upon the total weight of the multiwall sheet (e.g., a cap layer) ([0113]-[0114]; also [0010]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Richards teaches that the weatherable, capped, pultruded substrate of the invention is useful as a replacement for wood and metal structures and parts ([0060]). Typical uses include: window profiles (residential and commercial), windows, doors, door profiles, fencing, decking, railings, skylight framings, commercial curtainwall used in skyscrapers ([0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Hughes, which is relied on for disclosing (meth)acrylic resins having a high Tg of greater than 100° C is unable to cure the deficiencies present in Richards.
Regarding this contention, as applied above, Hughes teaches a coating component that comprises from about 0 wt % to about 40 wt % of a gloss modifier component, wherein the weight percent is based on the total weight of the coating component ([0031]). The at least one optional gloss modifier component may be chosen from inorganic fillers and polymeric fillers ([0108]). Non-limiting examples of suitable inorganic fillers include talc (magnesium silicate), silica, kaolin clay, alumina and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) ([0108]). Therefore, Hughes teaches the claimed calcium carbonate weight percent range. Richards in view of Hughes does not explicitly disclose the claimed core shell impact modifier range of 10 to 40 weight percent. However, as applied above, Crabb and Donea teach the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights