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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 12/23/2025, the previous objections and rejections under 112 have been withdrawn however the amendments necessitated a different rejection under 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the claim requires a recessed portion protected by a protective ridge of elevated rubber. Applicant argues that the rejection uses impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Lowe specifically discloses that a depression increases durability and this was knowledge that was within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Applicant also argues that the ridge provides unexpected advantages but does not specify what those advantages are beyond anything that is cited from the prior art.
Applicant also argues that Lowe describes a depression but does not describe the structure of the depression having recessed grooves and an elevated rubber ridge extending above the plane of the curb’s surface. Examiner disagrees. First, a depression meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a recessed groove. Second, the claim does not specify that the elevated rubber extends above the plane of the curb’s surface. The claim only specifies that the ridge defines the edges of the recessed portion. Naturally, the sides of a recessed portion are elevated compared to the recessed portion. Examiner suggests further specifying the structure of the ridge.
Applicant argues that the Choi reference is misinterpreted because the portion cited as the protective ridge is merely the vertical sidewall of the indentation. As noted above, the claim describes “a protective ridge of elevated rubber that defines a perimeter around a recessed portion” and “edges of the recessed portion defined by the protective ridge of elevated rubber.” Within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the ridge is the side of the recessed portion so long as it is “elevated,” in the case of Choi, with respect to the recessed portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 32, 34, and 36-37 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.
Claim 32 recites “a recessed portion” but claim 1 previously recites “a recessed portion”. It is not clear if this refers to the same recessed portion or another recessed portion as the one in claim 1. Claims 34 and 36-37 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2017/0175349, made of record on the IDS filed 10/31/2022), Lowe (US 2006/0134370), and Choi (KR 2005-0003821, see English copy provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Davis meets the claimed, A method of producing a molded rubber curb (Davis [0006] and [0008]-[0009] describes a rubber barrier for traffic, parking lots, etc.) arranged to accept a customized printed label comprising: providing a mold (Davis [0056] describes a mold 1006 for producing a rubber barrier 1000) filling the mold with recycled rubber having an average particle size of 5-20 MESH (US Standard) (Davis [0064] describes recycled rubber with a particle size of ½” to 200 mesh, the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed in the art and is therefore obvious, see MPEP §2144.05(I)) adding 4 to 10% polyurethane binder (v/w) to the recycled rubber in the mold; (Davis [0039] and [0065] describes 10% binder including a polyurethane binder) subjecting the mold to suitable temperature and pressure for forming the molded rubber curb; (Davis [0069]-[0070] describe heating and compressing to cure) and removing the molded rubber curb comprising (Davis [0080] describes removing the molded skin from the mold.)
Davis does not disclose a label insertion site on the mold or product. Lowe also describes a rubber barrier meets the claimed, mold for forming the molded rubber curb having a label insertion site on a surface of the molded rubber product, (Lowe Figure 2 and [0023] discloses a decorative element 14 which is positioned into the mold, the site where it is positioned is the label insertion site) label insertion site for accepting the customized printed label (Lowe Figure 2 shows the decorative elements 14.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the mold from Davis with the mold and product of Lowe which have an insertion area for adding a decorative element in order to provide a reflective element for being seen at night, see Lowe [0019] or a logo for recognition, see Lowe [0004].
Davis as modified by Lowe disclose a mold and curb with an insertion site for a label. Although Lowe [0025] discloses the decorative element may be inserted into a depression formed in the molded body in order to increase durability, neither Davis nor Lowe specifically disclose the depression or grooves on the mold.
Analogous in the field of rubber barrier molding, Choi also describes a barrier with reflective tape and meets the claimed, a set of recessed grooves formed in an inner surface of the mold having a protective ridge of elevated rubber that defines a perimeter around a recessed portion of the molded rubber curb for label insertion on the recess portion of a surface of the molded rubber, (Choi [0033]-[0035] describes a mold 20 with portions 22’ that form an indentation 43 on the molded product where a tape 45 is inserted, the parts immediately adjacent to 22’ are recessed in the mold but form an elevated structure on the final product which surrounds the indentations 43 where the tape 45 is placed) said recessed portion being a label insertion site for accepting the customized printed label; the recessed portion and the label being sized and shaped such that edges of the recessed portion defined by the protective ridge of elevated rubber press against edges of the label such that the edges of the label are not exposed and fit within the recessed portion and are protected by the edges of the recessed portion and by the protective ridge of elevated rubber the label insertion site defined by the protective ridge of elevated rubber from the mold (Choi Figures 2 and 3 show where the indented portion 43 is formed from the protrusion portion 22’ and the tape 45 being inserted into the indented portion 43 such that the edges of the tape are covered by the ridges/ sides of the recessed portion.)
PNG
media_image1.png
759
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the ridges and insertion site described in Choi in order to form a depression and increase the durability of the decorative element.
Regarding claim 2, Davis meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1, wherein the mold is subjected to a temperature of 150-250 degrees F (Davis [0074] describes molding at 250 degrees F.)
Regarding claim 3, Davis meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1through a hydraulic press applying 300-600 tons (Davis [0074] describes a hydraulic press.)
Davis does not explicitly disclose the claimed pressure range wherein the mold is subjected to a pressure of 2,000 to 3,500 PSI or applying 300-600 tons, however, Davis [0074] does not explicitly describe 2,000-3,000 PSI but does disclose that the amount of pressure may change depending on the thickness of the item being molded. Davis discloses that the pressure can be altered depending on the exact specifications of the item being molded. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the molding pressure disclosed in Davis in order to optimize the molding conditions, see Davis [0074], see MPEP 2144.04 (II).
Regarding claim 4, Davis meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein the mold is subjected to a temperature of 150-250 degrees F (Davis [0074] describes molding at 250 degrees F )and a pressure through a hydraulic press (Davis [0074] describes a hydraulic press.)
Davis does not explicitly disclose the claimed pressure range of 2,000 to 3,500 PSI applying 300-600 tons of pressure Davis [0074] does not explicitly describe 2,000-3,000 PSI but does disclose that the amount of pressure may change depending on the thickness of the item being molded. Davis discloses that the pressure can be altered depending on the exact specifications of the item being molded. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the molding pressure disclosed in Davis in order to optimize the molding conditions, see Davis [0074], see MPEP 2144.04 (II).
Davis does not disclose the molding time. Choi meets the claimed, for 7-12 minutes (Choi [0022] discloses 10 minutes in the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of applying heat and pressure as disclosed in Davis with the method of Choi which includes holding the article in the mold for 10 minutes in order to begin the curing process of the rubber, see Choi [0022].
Regarding claim 5, Davis does not disclose a depth of the grooves. While Choi discloses the grooves, Choi does not specify the depth. Lowe [0025], however, discloses that a depression can be formed which is deeper than the depth of the decorative element. Although Lowe does not specifically meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein the recessed grooves have a depth for accepting the customized printed label of approximately 1/8th of an inch or 1/16th of an inch, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the mold as disclosed in modified Davis through routine optimization in order to ensure that the decorative element is fully contained within the grooves to increase the durability of the decorative element, see Davis [0025].
Regarding claim 6, Davis as previously modified by Choi describes a mold with the grooves and meets the claimed, is placed between the recessed grooves (Choi [0033] describes the portions 22’) but does not describe molding with a label and does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein prior to filling the mold with recycled rubber, a printed label composed of rubber based reflective sheeting
Lowe meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein prior to filling the mold with recycled rubber, a printed label (Lowe [0004] discloses a decorative element including a name) composed of rubber based reflective sheeting (Lowe [0019] describes decorative element 14 contains fabric and a reflective paint containing polyurethane and an adhesive containing nitrile resin) is placed between the recessed grooves (Lowe [0023] describes the decorative element 14 is placed in the mold prior to filling with the body material 32.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the step of placing the label in the mold prior to molding as disclosed in Lowe in order to permanently connect the reflective element with the rubber article, see Lowe [0006].
Regarding claim 32, Davis describes an hollow inner compartment but does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein the molded rubber curb further comprises a recessed portion on a front or on a back of the molded rubber curb.
Choi meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1wherein the molded rubber curb further comprises a recessed portion on a front or on a back of the molded rubber curb (Choi [0036] describes an indentation 43.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the recessed pocket described in Choi in order to have a location to place the luminescent tape, see Choi [0036].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the tape being inlayed into the indentation as described in Lowe in order to increase the durability of the decorative element, see Davis [0025].
Regarding claim 34, although Lowe does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the entire decorative element or the depth of the depression in which the decorative element is placed, however Davis [0025] discloses that a depression can be formed which is deeper than the depth of the decorative element and that the label should be thinner than that depth in order to increase the durability and meets the claimed, The method according to claim 32 wherein the recessed portion has a depth of approximately 1/8th inch and the customized printed label has a thickness of 1/16th inch. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the depth of the pocket and the thickness of the label as disclosed in modified Davis through routine optimization in order to ensure that the decorative element is fully contained within the grooves to increase the durability of the decorative element, see Davis [0025].
Regarding claim 35, Davis does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 1 wherein a region of the mold that forms the recessed pocket includes indicia identifying the manufacturer of the molded rubber cur.
Lowe meets the claimed, The method according to claim 1wherein a region of the mold that forms the recessed pocket includes indicia identifying the manufacturer of the molded rubber curb (Lowe [0023] describes placing the decorative element into the mold and Lowe [0006] describes the decorative element may contain a company name or logo.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the identifying indicia of Lowe in order to identify the company that produced the product.
Regarding claim 36, Davis does not describe a label with the edges covered by the recessed pocket and does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 32 wherein following removal of the molded rubber curb from the mold, a printed label sized and shaped such that recessed edges of the recessed portion press against edges of the printed label such that the edges of the printed label are not exposed.
Lowe meets the claimed, The method according to claim 32 wherein following removal of the molded rubber curb from the mold, a printed label sized and shaped such that recessed edges of the recessed pocket press against edges of the printed label such that the edges of the printed label are not exposed (Davis [0025] describes the decorative element is laid within a depression deeper than the thickness of the element 14.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Davis with the tape being inlayed into the indentation as described in Lowe in order to increase the durability of the decorative element, see Davis [0025].
Regarding claim 37, Davis does not describe a label with the edges covered and does not meet the claimed, The method according to claim 32 wherein edges of the printed label press against edges of the protective ridge so that the edges of the printed label are not exposed.
Lowe meets the claimed, The method according to claim 32 wherein edges of the printed label press against edges of the protective ridge so that the edges of the printed label are not exposed (Davis [0025] describes the decorative element is laid within a depression deeper than the thickness of the element 14.)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Davis as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Free (US 2013/0034682.)
Regarding claim 7, modified Davis meets the claimed, The method according to claim 6 wherein the rubber based reflective sheeting is printed with customized indicia (Lowe [0004] describes a name painted on the decorative element).
While Lowe does disclose the printing of letters or indicia, Lowe does not disclose the resolution and does not meet the claimed, with a resolution of at least 600 dpi.
Analogous in the field of reflective traffic control devices, Free meets the claimed, with a resolution of at least 600 dpi (Free [0025] discloses a barrier layer of a reflective article used in traffic control that contains letters, patterns, text, images, or logos and Free [0079] discloses the barrier layer is printed with a dpi of 600.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the method of Davis to include a printed label of at least 600 dpi as disclosed in Free in order to have the pattern or words be legible.
Regarding claim 8, Lowe further meets the claimed, The method according to claim 7 wherein the rubber based reflective sheeting is printed with UV stable ink (Lowe [0019] discloses a UV stable polyurethane ink.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of molding described in Davis with the UV stable ink as disclosed in Lowe in order to prevent discoloration, see Lowe [0019].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached on 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744