DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-25 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-25 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 5 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
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.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 03/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 03/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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) 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554),
in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574).
and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944).
WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 discloses gel-coated composite articles (e.g., bathtubs, sinks, wash basins, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “sanitaryware”), wherein the composite articles (10) comprise:
• a gelcoat layer (14) (e.g., polyester, etc.), wherein the thickness of the gelcoat layer can be varied in accordance with intended usage conditions;
• a fiber-reinforced (FR) polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) formed from a FR polyester resin composition comprising:
• fiber reinforcement (16) (e.g., glass fibers with a typical length of 5-50 mm; etc.);
• polyester resin;
• optionally core material(s) (e.g., but not limited to, balsa, rigid foam, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “reinforcing elements”;
• optionally filler (e.g., mineral fillers, organic fillers, etc.).
The composite article (10) can be formed by conventional techniques -- for example, but not limited to:
• providing a mold;
• applying (e.g., via spraying, etc.) a polyester resin gelcoat (14) to the mold surface;
• applying (e.g., via spraying, etc.) a FR polyester resin composition onto the gelcoat (14);
• curing the FR polyester resin composition to form the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) (e.g., curing at low heat, etc.);
• removing the gel-coated composite article (10).
(entire document, e.g., Figure 1; line 12-28, col. 1; line 57, col. 3 to line 45, col. 4; line 12-41, col. 6; etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss particular shaped reinforcing elements
HSU ET AL ‘574 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize gelcoat layers with typical thicknesses of 0.2-0.6 mm in the production of gel-coated composite articles (e.g., bathroom articles such as bathtubs, shower stalls; etc.). The reference further discloses that it is well known in the art to produce gel-coated composite articles by at least partially curing the gelcoat layer prior to application of additional curable FR resin layers -- e.g., but not limited to:
• providing a mold;
• applying (e.g., via spraying, etc.) a gelcoat composition to the mold surface;
• at least partially curing the gelcoat composition;
• applying additional curable FR resin layers;
• curing the additional curable FR resin layers;
• removing the gel-coated composite article.
(paragraph abstract, 0008, 0064-0066, 0068, etc.)
VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate reinforcing core elements (32, 62, 83, 116, 306) (e.g., plywood, laminated wood, etc. in the form of plates or strips, etc.) in fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles (e.g., bathroom components such as walls, floors, shower, floor pan, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “support”), wherein the plate-form or strip-form reinforcing core elements are encased by FR composite layers (corresponding to the recited “plate-shaped or strip-shaped or profile-shaped reinforcing elements are embedded in the support in one or more positions”), and wherein FR composite articles containing said reinforcing core elements typically comprise:
• a gel coat surface layer (300);
• a first resin and glass fiber laminate layer (304);
• a reinforcement core (306) (e.g., laminated wood core, etc.);
• a second resin and glass fiber laminate layer (308).
After forming, the FR composite articles can be subsequently machined (e.g., drilled for bore holes for fasteners, etc.). (Figure 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 17-18, 29, etc.; paragraph 0008, 0020-0023, 0028, 0030, 0080-0085, etc.)
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize gelcoat layers with conventional thicknesses (as suggested in HSU ET AL ‘574) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to produce durable, water-resistant sanitaryware articles.
Further regarding claims 1, 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed reinforcing plate-form and/or strip-form core elements as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 using reinforcing materials which are comparatively light in weight or density (e.g., structural foams, lightweight or ultra-lightweight plywood or fiberboard, etc.) in the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to produce sanitaryware articles with improved and/or localized structural strength and/or convenient structural elements for fastening hardware (e.g., grab bars, towel bars, soap dishes, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 with a textured surface which is reproduced in the gelcoat layer (14) layer in order to provide sanitaryware articles (e.g., bathtubs, shower, flooring, etc.) with desirable anti-slip or non-skid characteristics.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 to form known sanitaryware products (e.g., bathtubs, shower trays, etc.).
Regarding claims 13, 15-16, 22-23, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized conventional FR composite open-mold lay-up methods as disclosed in WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574 to produce the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 with embedded reinforcing core elements as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944.
Regarding claims 15-16, one of ordinary skill in the art would have subjected the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 to known working or machining or finishing operations (e.g., drilling, etc.) in order to facilitate attachment to other surfaces (e.g., wall studs, etc.) or other components (e.g., other FR composite panels, fasteners, etc.) as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of MUELLER ET AL (US 5,543,225).
MUELLER ET AL ‘225 discloses that it is well known in the art to form fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles with reinforcing core elements (60) embedded between FR composite layers (30, 30a) by:
• providing a mold surface (11);
• applying a gelcoat layer (20) to the mold surface;
• applying a curable FR composite material layer (30) to the gelcoat layer (20);
• placing a supporting member (60) on FR composite material layer (30);
• applying an additional curable FR composite material layer (30a) to the supporting material (60);
in order to produce FR composite articles with improved structural support and mechanical strength. (Figure 4-6, etc.; line 32, col. 12 to line 30, col. 13, etc.)
Regarding claim 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized conventional FR composite open-mold lay-up methods as disclosed in WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574 and known reinforcement embedding methods as disclosed in MUELLER ET AL ‘225 to produce the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 with embedded reinforcing core elements in the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 in order to sanitaryware articles with improved and/or localized structural strength and/or convenient structural elements for fastening hardware (e.g., grab bars, towel bars, soap dishes, etc.).
Claims 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of EP 2974637 (NURSE-EP ‘637)
NURSE-EP ‘637 discloses that it is well known in the art to provide sanitaryware (e.g., shower tray, bath tub, etc.) with roughened, textured surfaces in order to provide anti-slip characteristics. (paragraph 0001, 0005-0006, 0010, etc.)
Regarding claims 11-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 with a textured surface which is reproduced in the gelcoat layer (14) layer in order to provide known sanitaryware articles (e.g., bathtubs, shower floors, etc.) with desirable anti-slip or non-skid characteristics.
Claims 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of MELNYK ET AL (US 2011/0086975).
MELNYK ET AL ‘975 discloses that it is well known in the art that, as an alternative to applying a gelcoat layer to a mold surface, followed by application of curable fiber-reinforced (FR) layers, gel-coated FR composite articles can be formed by:
• providing a pre-existing FR substrate;
• applying (e.g., via spraying, brushing, etc.) an uncured gelcoat composition to the FR substrate to form an uncured gelcoat layer;
• curing the gelcoat layer to produce a gel-coated FR composite article.
(paragraph 0003-0006, 0097-0101, etc.)
Regarding claims 17, 19-20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to known alternative “out-of-mold” methods (as disclosed in MELNYK ET AL ‘975 to produce the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to: facilitate the application of uniform gelcoat layers to complex shapes; and/or to facilitate the pre-treatment of the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”); and/or to facilitate the application of non-moldable structural and/or decorative elements (e.g., metallic or pattern layers, etc.); and/or to facilitate the independent optimization of curing conditions for the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) and the gelcoat layer (14) layer.
Regarding claims 19-20, one of ordinary skill in the art would have subjected gel-coated surfaces and/or edges of the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 to known working or machining or finishing operations (e.g., drilling, trimming, etc.) in order to facilitate attachment to other surfaces (e.g., wall studs, etc.) or other components (e.g., other FR composite panels, fasteners, etc.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of MELNYK ET AL (US 2011/0086975),
as applied to claims 17, 19-20 above,
and further in view of MUELLER ET AL (US 5,543,225).
MUELLER ET AL ‘225 discloses that it is well known in the art to form fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles with reinforcing core elements (60) embedded between FR composite layers (30, 30a) by:
• providing a mold surface (11);
• applying a gelcoat layer (20) to the mold surface;
• applying a curable FR composite material layer (30) to the gelcoat layer (20);
• placing a supporting member (60) on FR composite material layer (30);
• applying a curable FR composite material layer to the supporting material (60);
in order to produce FR composite articles with improved structural support and mechanical strength. (Figure 4-6, etc.; line 32, col. 12 to line 30, col. 13, etc.)
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed reinforcing core elements as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 in the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to produce sanitaryware articles with improved and/or localized structural strength and/or convenient structural elements for fastening hardware (e.g., grab bars, towel bars, soap dishes, etc.).
Further regarding claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized conventional FR composite open-mold lay-up methods as disclosed in WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574 and known reinforcement embedding methods as disclosed in MUELLER ET AL ‘225 to produce the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 prior to the application of the gelcoat layer in order to produce gel-coated FR composite articles with embedded reinforcing core elements as suggested in VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 and thereby produce sanitaryware articles with improved and/or localized structural strength and/or convenient structural elements for fastening hardware (e.g., grab bars, towel bars, soap dishes, etc.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of STEENSMA ET AL (US 2015/0322264),
and further in view of MUELLER ET AL (US 5,543,225).
STEENSMA ET AL ‘264 discloses that it is well known in the art that the curing temperature of FR composite materials can be carried out at temperatures ranging from -15 C to 250 ºC, depending on the specific cure initiator system, cure accelerator system, and FR composite composition used, wherein typical curing times can range from 30 minutes to 15 hours. (paragraph 0011-0013, 0048-0049, etc.)
MUELLER ET AL ‘225 discloses that it is well known in the art to form gel-coated fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles by at least partially curing gelcoat layers applied to mold surfaces prior to application of curable fiber-reinforced (FR) resin layer(s), wherein polyester gelcoat layers can be pre-cured at typical temperatures of 80-110 ºF (about 27-43 ºC) for 15-30 minutes. (line 28-52, col. 3; line 36-57, col. 4; etc.)
Regarding claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the cure systems in the gelcoat layer (14) and the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to tailor the curing temperatures and times of the gelcoat layer (14) and the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) for specific conventional manufacturing conditions and/or apparatus as suggested in STEENSMA ET AL ‘264 and MUELLER ET AL ‘225.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• WATTERSON, III ET AL (US 5,919,554), in view of HSU ET AL (US 2002/0072574), and in view of VAN ROVENHORST (US 2013/0097944),
as applied to claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16, 22-23 above,
and further in view of ANDJELKOVIC ET AL (US 2011/0040004),
and further in view of BURNELL-JONES (US 2001/0010367).
ANDJELKOVIC ET AL ‘004 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize curable fiber-reinforced (FR) polyester resin compositions to form FR composite articles (e.g., bath or shower surrounds, etc.) with improved shrinkage control, wherein the FR polyester resin compositions comprise:
• a polyester resin formulation comprising:
• 35-50 wt% of an unsaturated polyester resin;
• 5-35 wt% of a low profile additive (LPA) (e.g., thermoplastic resins, etc.);
• 15-60 wt% of copolymerizable monomer(s) (considered to be part of the resin component of the polyester resin formulation);
• reinforcement materials (e.g., glass fiber, etc.) in typical amounts of 20-300 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation;
• curing agent (i.e., polymerization initiators) in typical amounts of 0.1-5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation;
• optionally filler in typical amounts of 50-1,000 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation.
(paragraph 0002, 0006, 0014, 0018-0025, etc.)
BURNELL-JONES ‘367 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize polyester-based gelcoat compositions for fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles (e.g., spa baths, etc.) comprising:
• 25-95 wt% resin;
• up to 10 wt% pigments;
wherein the gelcoat layers have a typical thickness of 0.25-0.75 mm, in order to produce FR composite articles with hard, smooth surfaces. (paragraph 0052, 0076-0079, 0082, 0086, 0188, 0194, etc.)
Regarding claims 24-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known gelcoat compositions as disclosed in BURNELL-JONES ‘367 to form the gelcoat layer (14) and known controlled shrinkage FR polyester resin compositions as disclosed in ANDJELKOVIC ET AL ‘004 to form the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 in order to produce gel-coated sanitaryware with attractive appearance and accurate dimensions.
Further regarding claims 24-25, since ANDJELKOVIC ET AL ‘004 discloses curable fiber-reinforced (FR) polyester resin compositions containing:
• a polyester resin formulation;
• reinforcement materials (e.g., glass fiber, etc.) in typical amounts of 20-300 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation;
• curing agent (i.e., polymerization initiators) in typical amounts of 0.1-5 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation;
• optionally filler in typical amounts of 50-1,000 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polyester resin formulation;
ANDJELKOVIC ET AL ‘004 discloses curable fiber-reinforced (FR) polyester resin compositions containing: a resin component; a curing agent component; a glass fiber component; and a filler component; in weight percentages which at least partially read on the support material compositions recited in claims 24-25 which can be used to form the FR polyester resin component (12) (corresponding to the recited “support”) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that “Watterson, III et al. do not disclose plate-shaped or strip-shaped or profile-shaped reinforcing elements embedded in the support at one or more positions, as recited in amended claim 1.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(B) Applicant argues that WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574, individually or in combination, “does not teach or suggest the invention recited in the amended claims now on file. Neither of the references teaches plate-shaped or strip-shaped or profile-shaped reinforcing elements embedded in the support at one or more positions, as required by the amended claims now on file.” Applicant further argues that WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 fails to disclose or suggest the claimed reinforcing elements because “The principal object of Watterson, III et al., on the other hand, is to provide a fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) composite having antimicrobial protection incorporated in the polymeric material of the FRP composite”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(C) Applicant argues that “Van Ravenhorst does not disclose a sanitaryware article (like shower trays or bathtubs) that comprise plate-shaped or strip-shaped or profile-shaped reinforcing elements embedded in the support at one or more positions. Instead, the reinforcement elements are only incorporated in the wall panels and the ledge members (see [0008] and Fig. 4, 9 and 12).”
However, the wall panels and ledge members of VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 are used as components for “bathrooms, gang showers and any space where water, liquids or humidity present maintenance and durability problems”. In the absence of an explicit definition to the contrary, the term “sanitaryware” can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing the entire space where sanitary or hygiene tasks take place, and therefore, reasonably encompass structural elements (e.g., shower walls, etc.) which define the sanitary space or facility.
Additionally, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 does not limit the use of reinforcing elements to walls or ledges as asserted by Applicant, Instead, VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 explicitly discloses that a reinforcing core element (32) with a strip-form can be incorporated into a floor pan (20) (e.g., to provide localized reinforcement to the edge of the floor pan, etc.)
(D) Applicant argues that “it would not be for a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the teachings of Watterson, III et al. and Van Ravenhorst in the first place, since Watterson, III et al. provide no indication or teaching or suggestion of or need for reinforcing
the FRP of Watterson, III et al. with reinforcing elements.”
However, the source of motivation for combining references is not limited solely to the primary reference, but encompass the prior art as a whole, in particular the relied upon secondary references. VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 discloses that reinforcing elements can be incorporated into the FRP components of a bathroom or shower space, wherein the reinforcing element can be used to: (i) provide localized reinforcement (32) for a floor pan (20); and/or (ii) provide reinforced anchoring regions (e.g., 32, 62, 83, 116, 306) in fiber-reinforced (FR) composite articles for bath or shower fixtures.
In the present instance, mere silence in the primary reference WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 (with respect to reinforcing elements) does not constitute a clear teaching away from the use of known modifying elements with well-established benefits or advantages (e.g., the incorporation of reinforcing elements, as suggested by VAN ROVENHORST ‘944). Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims from the recited reinforcing elements.
(E) Applicant argues that “incorporating a reinforcing element according to Van Ravenhorst into the FRP layer of Watterson, III et al. would actually be detrimental to the actual
purpose of Watterson, III et al., namely to provide a FRP composite having antimicrobial protection, since then the migration of the antimicrobial agents to the surface could be impaired.” However, since WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 clearly suggests the inclusion of “core materials” in the disclosed FRP composites, the reference reasonably implies that the mere presence of non-FRP core materials (e.g., foam, wood, etc.) in the gel-coated FR composite articles of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 would not substantially inhibit the desired migration of anti-microbial agents to the gel-coated surface of the FR composite articles and therefore would not be excessively detrimental to the anti-microbial effect desired in WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554, particularly when VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 discloses illustrative examples of reinforcing elements (e.g., (62) in Figures 4, 6; (83) in Figure 9; etc.) in which the substantial bulk of the FRP composite material is positioned at the exposed gel-coated side of the panel, and therefore, even if the presence of reinforcing elements totally or substantially inhibits the migration of anti-microbial agents to the gel-coated front-facing surface of a composite article -- a point not conceded by the Examiner -- this alleged inhibitory affect on anti-microbial agent migration would not be present in an article where the substantial bulk of anti-microbial-containing FRP composite material is positioned at the front-facing side of the panel. Therefore, the Examiner has reason to believe that an effective degree of anti-microbial migration desired in WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 can still be maintained even in the presence of plate-form or strip-form reinforcing elements. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence to the contrary.
(F) Applicant argues that “if the reinforcing elements would be layered underneath the FRP, then the bathtub made out of the composite material according to Watterson, III et al. would then comprise three layers, namely the gelcoat layer, the FRP composite material, which corresponds to the support of the present invention, (both layers disclosed in Watterson, III et al.) and a layer with reinforcing elements (disclosed in Van Ravenhorst). However, this does not correspond to the subject of the invention according to amended claim 1”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a sanitaryware article limited to only two layers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As an initial matter, the present claims do not limit the number of layers or sublayers in the recited support or in the recited sanitaryware article as a whole.
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the combination of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 results in a two-component sanitaryware article comprising: (i) a gelcoat layer (300) component; and (ii) a FRP composite material component which contains embedded reinforcing elements (304 / 306 / 308), wherein upon curing, layers (304) and (308) bond together around the reinforcing element (306) to form a monolithic FRP composite component containing an embedded reinforcing element (e.g., Figure 9, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “support” containing “reinforcing elements are embedded in the support”).
(G) Applicant argues that “Therefore, applicant submits that a combination of Van Ravenhorst and Watterson, III et al. would not be technically expedient and would actually lead a person skilled in the art away from the presently claimed invention.” However, Applicant’s arguments that the teachings of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 cannot be combined are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in detail above.
(H) Applicant argues that “The Mueller et al., Nurse-EP '637, Melnyk et al., Steensma et
al., Andjelkovic et al. and Burnell-Jones references” and the “Lu, Diethelm, Chen and Stammel references” fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574 and VAN ROVENHORST ‘944, individually or in combination. However, since Applicant’s arguments with respect to the alleged deficiencies of WATTERSON, III ET AL ‘554 and HSU ET AL ‘574 and VAN ROVENHORST ‘944 are deemed unpersuasive, Applicant’s arguments regarding the other secondary references are similarly deemed unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MILLARD (US 2019/0277082) disclose composite panels with reinforcing elements.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
May 27, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights