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 Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: The period at the end of the fifth-to-last line should be replaced with a semicolon, the second occurrence of the limitation “and wherein the fascia layer has a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns” should be deleted for clarity, and the term “andis” should be replaced with -- and is -- to correct a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 25-50 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.
Regarding claims 25 and 34, the original disclosure fails to provide support for “the first resin comprising a structural resin having a higher thermal performance than the second resin” (emphasis added) as set forth in both of these claims. While there is support in Applicant’s disclosure that the first resin can be a “high thermal performance structural resin” (note paragraphs [016], [020], [021], [054], [110] and [138]), there is no clear support in the original disclosure that the first resin has a “higher thermal performance than the second resin” as now claimed.
Regarding claim 47, there is no support in the original disclosure for “the fascia layer composite composition has less susceptibility to formation of defects than the wheel body composite composition”.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 34-42 and 50 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.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “a fibre composite layer” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a fibre composite layer” refers to the previously recited “at least one fibre layer” or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 25-28, 30-38 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner et al. (US 2016/0193869 A1; hereinafter “Renner”) in view of Adrian (WO 98/13219 A2) and Hess et al. (WO 2013/026880 A1; hereinafter “Hess”).
Regarding claim 25, Renner discloses a carbon fibre wheel 1 for a vehicle (paragraph [0018]), the carbon fibre wheel comprising: a wheel body comprising a rim portion 2 and a face portion 3, the rim portion comprises an annulus structure (comprised of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) configured to receive and seat a tyre (evident from Fig. 1), the face portion including a hub at 5 configured to fix the wheel to the vehicle (evident from Fig. 1), and a connection structure 4 that extends between and interconnects the hub and the rim (Fig. 1), the wheel body having an inner side (best shown in Fig. 2) configured to face a wheel mount of the vehicle (evident from Fig. 2), and an outer side (best shown in Fig. 1) configured to face outwardly when connected to the wheel mount of the vehicle (evident from Fig. 1), and the wheel body being formed from a first carbon fibre composite composition (paragraphs [0016] and [0040]) comprising a carbon fibre layup infused with a first resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040]).
Renner fails to disclose a fascia layer attached to and in a cooperating configuration with at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body including cooperating contours to the connection structure and any fillers or inserts disposed between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body, the fascia layer being formed from a second fibre composite composition comprising a selected fibre layup infused with a second resin, wherein the first resin has a different composition to the second resin, the first resin comprising a structural resin having a higher thermal performance than the second resin; and wherein the fascia layer has a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns and comprises a fibre composite layer that is moulded to the wheel body and fills any defects on the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body.
Adrian, however, teaches a wheel 12 which includes a fascia layer 14 attached to and in a cooperating configuration with at least a portion at 16, 18 of the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body including cooperating contours to the connection structure at 18 and any fillers or inserts disposed between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4), the fascia layer being formed from a second fibre composite composition (lines 4-21 of page 5) comprising a selected fibre layup infused with a second resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5), and wherein the fascia layer has a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon fibre wheel of Renner by including the claimed fascia layer having a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns, such as taught by Adrian, as a well-known fascia layer arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in protecting the outer surface of the wheel while providing desired aesthetics. Further, such a modification would result in the first resin having a different composition to the second resin, wherein the first resin comprises a structural resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040] of Renner) having a higher thermal performance than the second resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5 of Adrian).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, although Adrian further discloses the fascia layer comprises a fibre composite layer at 14 (lines 4-5 and 15-20 of page 5) that fills any defects on the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body (evident from Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4), Renner, as modified by Adrian, fails to disclose the fibre composite layer being moulded to the wheel body such that the fascia layer is moulded to the wheel body as an overmoulded fibre composite layer. Instead, Adrian teaches the fascia layer/fibre composite layer being adhesively attached to the wheel body (lines 11-12 of page 4).
Hess, however, teaches a fascia layer 5 comprising a fibre composite layer (See the second paragraph on page 3 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “Also suitable as a material for the diaphragm are so-called organic sheets, ie continuous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic flat semi-finished products, or individual preimpregnated thermoplastic tapes”; See the third paragraph on page 3 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “Suitable polymers for the wheel body and for the diaphragm are, for example, natural and synthetic polymers or their derivatives, natural resins and synthetic resins and their derivates”; See the fifth paragraph on page 4 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “The polymer material is preferably reinforced. In particular, the polymer material is fiber-reinforced. For reinforcement, any, known in the art..reinforcement conventional fiber can be used. Suitable fibers are, for example, glass fibers, carbon fibers…”) that can be attached to the wheel body 9 in a number of different ways including by adhesive or by overmoulding the fibre composite layer onto at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the moulded wheel body (See second paragraph on page 7 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “it is also possible first to produce the diaphragm, insert it into a mold for producing the wheel body and then to overmold or encase the diaphragm with the polymer material for the wheel body, whereby the wheel body and diaphragm are connected to form an integral component”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon fibre wheel of Renner, as modified by Adrian, by overmoulding the second fibre composite layer onto the wheel body, such as taught by Hess, as a well-known alternative attachment means that would have a reasonable expectation of success in adequately securing the fascia layer to the face portion of the moulded wheel body in a desired position.
Regarding claim 27, Renner further discloses the first resin is based on epoxy (paragraphs [0016] and [0040]) and Adrian further discloses the second resin is based on unsaturated polyester (lines 20-21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 28, Adrian further discloses at least the second resin having an aesthetically acceptable cured colour comprising at least one of: clear, transparent, translucent, glassy or pellucid (lines 5-9 of page 6).
Regarding claim 30, Renner further discloses the first resin comprises a thermal performance structural resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 31, Adrian further discloses the second resin comprises a structural resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 32, Adrian further discloses the selected fibre layup is formed from at least one fibre selected from the group consisting of: carbon fibre, aramid fibre, para-aramid fibre, glass fibre, polyester fibre and aluminised glass fibre (lines 4-21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 33, Adrian further discloses the fascia layer is attached to at least one of: the face portion 16, 18 of the outer side of the wheel body; or at least part of the rim portion 20 of the outer side of the wheel body (Fig. 1; lines 6-12 of page 4).
Regarding claim 34, Renner discloses a method of forming a carbon fibre wheel 1, comprising: forming a moulded wheel body from a first carbon fibre composite composition (paragraphs [0016] and [0040]) comprising a first carbon fibre layup infused with a first resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040]), the moulded wheel body comprising a rim portion 2 and a face portion 3, the rim portion comprising an annulus structure (comprised of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) configured to receive and seat a tyre (evident from Fig. 1), the face portion including a hub at 5 configured to fix the wheel to the vehicle (evident from Fig. 1), and a connection structure 4 that extends between and interconnects the hub and the rim (Fig. 1), the wheel body having an inner side (best shown in Fig. 2) configured to face a wheel mount of the vehicle (evident from Fig. 2), and an outer side (best shown in Fig. 1) configured to face outwardly when connected to the wheel mount of the vehicle (evident from Fig. 1).
Renner fails to disclose forming a fascia layer on the outer side of the moulded wheel body from a second fibre composite composition comprising a selected fibre layup infused with a second resin, the selected fibre layup comprising at least one fibre layer covering at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the moulded wheel body, the selected fibre layup having a cooperating configuration with the outer side of the wheel body and any fillers or inserts disposed between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body such that there is no unfilled space between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body, including cooperating contours to the connection structure, wherein the first resin has a different composition to the second resin, the first resin comprising a structural resin having a higher thermal performance than the second resin; and wherein the fascia layer has a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns and comprises a fibre composite layer that is moulded to the wheel body and fills any defects on the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body, and is formed on the outer side of the moulded wheel body by overmoulding the second fibre composite composition onto at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the moulded wheel body.
Adrian, however, teaches forming a fascia layer 14 on the outer side of the wheel body 12 (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4) from a second fibre composite composition comprising a selected fibre layup (lines 4-21 of page 5) infused with a second resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5), the selected fibre layup comprising at least one fibre layer covering at least a portion of the face portion at 16, 18 of the outer side of the wheel body (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4), the selected fibre layup having a cooperating configuration with the outer side of the wheel body and any fillers or inserts disposed between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body such that there is no unfilled space between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body, including cooperating contours to the connection structure at 18 (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4), and wherein the fascia layer has a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns (claim 3) and fills any defects on the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body (evident from Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of forming the carbon fibre wheel of Renner by including the claimed fascia layer having a thickness in a range of 100 to 800 microns, such as taught by Adrian, as a well-known fascia layer arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in protecting the outer surface of the wheel while providing desired aesthetics. Further, such a modification would result in the first resin having a different composition to the second resin, wherein the first resin comprises a structural resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040] of Renner) having a higher thermal performance than the second resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5 of Adrian).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, although Adrian discloses the fascia layer comprises a fibre composite composition layer at 14 (lines 4-5 and 15-20 of page 5) formed using a resin transfer moulding (RTM) process (lines 17-20 of page 5) and attached on the outer side of the wheel body onto at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body (Fig. 1), Renner, as modified by Adrian, fails to disclose the fibre composite composition layer being moulded to the wheel body such that the second fibre composite composition is overmoulded onto the outer side of the moulded wheel body using a resin transfer moulding (RTM) process. Instead, Adrian teaches fascia layer/fibre composite composition layer being adhesively attached to the wheel body (lines 11-12 of page 4).
Hess, however, teaches a fascia layer 5 comprising a fibre composite composition layer (See the second paragraph on page 3 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “Also suitable as a material for the diaphragm are so-called organic sheets, ie continuous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic flat semi-finished products, or individual preimpregnated thermoplastic tapes”; See the third paragraph on page 3 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “Suitable polymers for the wheel body and for the diaphragm are, for example, natural and synthetic polymers or their derivatives, natural resins and synthetic resins and their derivates”; See the fifth paragraph on page 4 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “The polymer material is preferably reinforced. In particular, the polymer material is fiber-reinforced. For reinforcement, any, known in the art..reinforcement conventional fiber can be used. Suitable fibers are, for example, glass fibers, carbon fibers…”) that can be attached to the wheel body 9 in a number of different ways including by adhesive or by overmoulding the fibre composite layer onto at least a portion of the face portion of the outer side of the moulded wheel body (See second paragraph on page 7 of the English language machine translation which states, in part, that “it is also possible first to produce the diaphragm, insert it into a mold for producing the wheel body and then to overmold or encase the diaphragm with the polymer material for the wheel body, whereby the wheel body and diaphragm are connected to form an integral component”) using a resin transfer moulding (RTM) process (process described in the second paragraph on page 7 of the English language machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon fibre wheel of Renner, as modified by Adrian, by overmoulding the second fibre composite composition layer onto the outer side of the moulded wheel body using a resin transfer moulding process, such as taught by Hess, as a well-known alternative attachment means that would have a reasonable expectation of success in adequately securing the fascia layer to the face portion of the moulded wheel body in a desired position.
Regarding claim 36, Adrian further discloses the fascia layer is formed on the face portion at 16, 18 and at least part of the rim portion 20 of the outer side of the wheel body (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4).
Regarding claim 37, Renner further discloses the first resin is based on epoxy (paragraphs [0016] and [0040]) and Adrian further discloses the second resin is based on unsaturated polyester (lines 20-21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 38, Adrian further discloses at least the second resin having an aesthetically acceptable cured colour comprising at least one of: clear, transparent, translucent, glassy or pellucid (lines 5-9 of page 6).
Regarding claim 40, Renner further discloses the first resin comprises a thermal performance structural resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 41, Adrian further discloses the second resin comprises a structural resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 42, Adrian further discloses the selected fibre layup is formed from at least one fibre selected from the group consisting of: carbon fibre, aramid fibre, para-aramid fibre, glass fibre, polyester fibre and aluminised glass fibre (lines 4-21 of page 5).
Regarding claim 43, Adrian further discloses the cooperating configuration further includes at least part of the rim portion at 20 of the outer side of the wheel body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 44, Renner further discloses the hub includes a plurality of recesses (unlabeled, but clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 2) spaced apart about a central axis of the wheel body, and Adrian further discloses the cooperating configuration further includes cooperating contours of the hub at 16 of the wheel body (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 45, Adrian further discloses the connection structure comprises a plurality of annularly spaced apart spokes 4 (Figs. 1 and 2).
12. Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner in view of Adrian and Hess, as applied to claims 25 and 34 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0127569 A1; hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Renner, as modified by Adrian and Hess, fails to expressly disclose the second resin comprising a UV resistant resin.
Choi, however, teaches a fascia layer 20 comprising a UV resistant resin (paragraph [0021] teaches the thermoplastic transparent resin composition can include a “UV stabilizer”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second resin so that it is a UV resistant resin, such as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success in protecting the fascia layer from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation.
13. Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner in view of Adrian and Hess, as applied to claims 25 and 45 above, and further in view of Bruner (US 1,009,642).
Regarding claim 46, although Renner further discloses each of the annularly spaced apart spokes 4 comprises an elongate arm 4 connected to the hub at 5 at one end and the rim portion 2 at another end (Figs. 1 and 2), Renner fails to disclose the elongate arm tapers from the hub toward the rim portion.
Bruner, however, teaches a wheel which comprises a plurality of annularly spaced apart spokes 4 with each spoke comprising an elongate arm 4 connected to the hub 11 at one end and the rim portion 7 at another end and tapers from the hub toward the rim portion (lines 72-73 of page 1; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spokes of Renner so that elongate arm of each spoke tapers from the hub toward the rim portion, such as taught by Bruner, as a well-known spoke configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the wheel with a desired rigidity while also minimizing the weight of the wheel.
14. Claims 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner in view of Adrian and Hess, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Schindlbeck (US 2021/0078362 A1; newly cited).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, although Renner further discloses the first resin comprises an epoxy (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040] of Renner), Renner, as modified by Adrian and Hess, fails to expressly disclose the second resin comprises polyurethane such that the fascia layer composite composition has less susceptibility to formation of defects than the wheel body composite composition.
Schindlbeck, however, teaches a fascia layer (covering element 1) that can comprise a polyurethane resin (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second resin so that it is a polyurethane resin, such as taught by Schindlbeck, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the fascia layer with improved impact and wear resistance. Further, such a modification would result in the fascia layer composite composition being less susceptibility to formation of defects than the wheel body composite composition.
15. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner in view of Adrian and Hess, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Naarmann et al. (DE 19630099 A1; hereinafter “Naarmann”; newly cited).
Regarding 49, although Adrian further teaches the fascia layer selected fibre layup comprises carbon fibre (lines 4-21 of page 5) and the second resin has a cured translucent aesthetic appearance to “enhance the ‘carbon-look’” (lines 5-9 of page 6), Adrian fails to expressly disclose the “carbon-look” that is being enhanced is black carbon fibre.
Naarmann, however, teaches a hubcap or fascia layer that comprises black carbon fibre (Note the fourth-to-last paragraph on page 11 of the English-language machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon fibre wheel of Renner, as modified by Adrian and Hess, by utilizing black carbon fibre for the carbon fibre of the selected fibre layup of the fascia layer, such as taught by Naarmann, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing an exceptional strength-to-weight ratio and high durability while also providing a distinctive aesthetic appeal.
16. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renner in view of Adrian and Hess, as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Schroeder et al. (US 2004/0070112 A1; hereinafter “Schroeder”; newly cited).
Renner, as modified by Adrian and Hess, fails to expressly disclose the method comprises using a tooling surface having a desired textured or polished surface and adding any desired pigment/colours to the second resin such that the moulded fascia layer satisfies desired aesthetic, structural, environmental and performance requirements without a step of applying a coating over the fascia layer to add a color, texture, or polish attribute.
Schroeder, however, teaches a method of forming a carbon fibre wheel in which a tooling surface having a desired textured or polished surface (paragraph [0010]) can be utilized such that a fascia layer 18 satisfies desired aesthetic, structural, environmental and performance requirements without a step of applying a coating over the fascia layer to add a color, texture, or polish attribute (paragraphs [0010-0011]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of forming the carbon fibre wheel of Renner, as modified by Adrian and Hess, by using the claimed tooling surface having a desired textured or polished surface, such as taught by Schroeder, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the fascia layer with a desired appearance.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that none of the cited references alone or in combination recite the newly added limitations to the independent claims, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Adrian teaches the selected fibre layup having a cooperating configuration with the outer side of the wheel body and any fillers or inserts disposed between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body such that there is no unfilled space between the fascia layer and the outer side of the wheel body, including cooperating contours to the connection structure at 18 (Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4), and fills any defects on the face portion of the outer side of the wheel body (evident from Figs. 1 and 2; lines 6-12 of page 4). Further, modifying the Renner to have the claimed fascia layer, such as taught by Renner, would result in the first resin comprising a structural resin (“epoxy resin” per paragraphs [0016] and [0040] of Renner) having a higher thermal performance than the second resin (“polyester” per line 21 of page 5 of Adrian).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 47-50 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.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST 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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights