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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauers et al (US 2012/0196079; cited by Applicant) in view of Pang Xuan et al (Biotechnology Journal vol 5, no 11; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 1, 18, Brauers et al disclose the basic claimed method and apparatus including manufacturing a water sports board (paragraph 0044) having a predetermined shape with the steps of forming a core including a shaped body in a foam material (Figure 1; paragraph 0042), externally covering the core by a shell of a composite material (Figure 1; paragraphs 0050-0055), with the step of forming the core includes the steps of providing a semi-finished product by forming the semi-finished product into the shaped body, by hand working or machining, the step of forming including turning the preliminary shape or a parallelepiped shape into the board shape (paragraph 0042). Not disclosed by Brauers et al are the particular claimed materials used. Pang Xuan et al disclose the particular claimed materials (pages 1, 6-9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device and method of Brauers et al with the particular claimed materials as taught by Pang Xuan et al with a high likelihood of success for improved strength and durability of board and for reduced environmental impact. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. With respect to claims 2, 19, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Brauers et al with the mass percentages claimed with a high likelihood of success for improved strength and durability and economy. Note also MPEP 2144.04 IV A. With respect to claims 3-4, 11-12, 20-21, 28-29, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Brauers et al with polylactic acid and an aliphatic polyester, protective paint and destructured starch with a high likelihood of success for improved strength and durability and economy. With respect to claims 5-6, 22-23, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stringer of Brauers et al of cork with a high likelihood of success for light weight. With respect to claims 7-8, 24-25, note Brauers et al, paragraphs 0029-0030. With respect to claims 9, 26, note Brauers et al, paragraph 0025. With respect to claims 10, 27, note Brauers et al, paragraphs 0024-0030. With respect to claims 7-10, 24-27, note Brauers et al, paragraphs 0029-0030. With respect to claims 13-17, 30-32, Brauers et al do not disclose recycling. Pang Xuan et al disclose recycling (page 1, column 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device and method of Brauers et al with recyling as taught by Pang Xuan et al with a high likelihood of success for reduced environmental impact. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
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 3-4, 11, 14, 20-21, 28 and 31 are further 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. Claims 3-4, 20-21 are indefinite for claiming a trademark. Note that trademarked materials may vary over time, thus the use of trademarked terms can be indefinite. The use of “in particular” in claims 11, 14, 28, 31 is indefinite for claiming a range within a range.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chimiak (5514017) shows a board. Cheung (2007/0155261) shows a foam deck. Mann (US 2010/0240271) shows a floatation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615