DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/26 has been entered.
Currently claims 1-4, and 6-24 are pending, claims 7-21 are withdrawn and claim 5 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak II et al (US Publication 20190283274).
As to claims 1-3, 22, and 23, Grzeskowiak discloses a synthetic molded slab for use in living or working space. The slab is formed to be rectangular with a width of at least 2 feet, a length of at least 6 feet (paragraph 7) and a thickness of .2cm to 5 cm (paragraph 25). The artificial marble can have vein patterns throughout the stone wherein the thickness of the vein is less than the slab thickness (paragraph 32). The slab can be adjusted to have a number of veins according to a predefined pattern and have a natural appearance. However, this reference is silent to 80% or more of the vein pattern has a width of 5mm to 20mm on a surface and wherein vein pattern has a thickness of 30% or greater over 50% or greater of the area of the entire pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed the slab to have 80% or more of the vein pattern have a width of 5mm to 20mm with the thickness of the vein being at least 30% of the slab over 50% of the pattern as Grzeskowiak discloses overlapping thickness for the width of the vein and that the vein pattern is than the total thickness of the artificial marble and is 30% or greater of a total thickness. Therefore, one would be able to adjust he pattern to create a desired aesthetically please slab or to imitate naturally stone as one could control the appearance of the slab as Grzeskowiak teaches that the vein pattern can be less than the total thickness of the slab as an option. See MPEP 2144.06. Grzeskowiak discloses that the veining pattern can extend all the way through the stone or it may not extend all the way through the slab and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could control the thickness of the veining pattern for aesthetic purposes.
It should be noted that claim 22 is a product by process claim in that it defines how the artificial marble was formed. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply the same structure of the artificial marble, and the reference discloses such a product.
As to claim 4, Grzeskowaik discloses that the veining pattern can run across the entire less of the stone and therefore would be obvious to have the length of the vein be larger than 50mm as it would be an aesthetic design choice.
As to claims 6, and 24, Grzeskowiak discloses that the vein pattern can be substantially unmixed from the other mixes and therefore the base would be unmixed from the vein pattern and therefore a clear boundary is formed between the pattern region and the base region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that the prior art of Grzeskowiak fails to teach that the vein pattern is thinner than a total thickness of the slab wherein the vein pattern has a thickness of greater than 30% over an area of 50% of the pattern. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that in paragraph 32 the veins may not extend through the full thickness of the slab. Further in paragraph 6 the vein pattern optionally can extend through the entire thickness of the slab. While Grzeskowiak doesn’t expressly teach the claimed limitation, he suggests that the thickness of the vein pattern can be controlled and adjusted to replicate or mimic natural stones and therefore it would be obvious design choice to have made the slab have the vein thickness as claimed as Grzeskowiak teaches having these veining patterns have different vein thicknesses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights