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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 and 11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in [0016], “ acrylic-abs” should read –acrylic-ABS--;
in [0021], “Polyuria” should read –polyurea--; and
in [0014] and [0023], “access” should read –excess--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “access” should read –excess--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 2, “steps (B) through (F)” should read –steps (B) through (E)--; and
in claim 13, “access” should read –excess--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 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 12 recites “integrating the supplemental reinforcement material into the reinforcement layer before step (E).” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for “reinforcement layer”. It is unclear how the supplement reinforcement material is incorporated before step (E), when the reinforcement coating forming the reinforcement layer is formed after (E).
For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to require integrating the supplemental reinforcement material with the resin for the reinforcement coating.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollum (PG-PUB 2004/0145092) in view of Wu (Machine Translation of CN113581361A), Lee (Machine Translation of KR102160373), and Lee ‘450 (US 4,057,450).
Regarding claim 1, McCollum teaches a process of reinforcing thermoplastic polymer, the method comprising:
(A) providing an Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic panel, a
thermoforming machine and a quantity of resin (Figure 6 and 7 and [0039]);
(B) shaping the ABS plastic panel into a desired body through the thermoforming
Machine (Figure 4, 6 and 7, [0039], [0043]; [0047]-[0049]).
McCollum teaches manufacturing boat decks and hulls or tubs [0003].
McCollum does not teach:
(A) providing a quantity of cleaning agent, an enclosed chamber; and a quantity of resin for forming a reinforcement coating;
(C) removing unwanted particulates from the desired body with the quantity of
cleaning agent;
(D) heating the desired body to a resin-bonding temperature with the enclosed
chamber; and
(E) layering the quantity of resin as at least one reinforcement coating onto the
desired body.
Wu teaches a deep sea long-term working pressure-resistant composite structure with a polyurea waterproof coating for improves sealing and prevent leaking (Page 2 and 5). Wu teaches cleaning a surface of the composite structure with alcohol, and then uniformly coating a polyurea waterproof layer on the surface of the carbon fiber pressure-resistant shell and a bonding seam between the carbon fiber pressure-resistant shell and a metal piece (Page 2, step 11).
Lee teaches a process of manufacturing a hull, comprising forming a finishing layer between a tank body and hull by repeatedly applying a transparent resin and glass fiber layer (Figure 7 and Page 3). Lee teaches airtightness is maintained by repeatedly performing the method of applying the layers (Page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the composite of McCollum with polyurea waterproof coating as taught by Wu for the benefit of improved sealing against water pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeatedly apply the coating layers of Wu for the benefit of completely sealing and waterproofing the composite of McCollum, as repeated coating provides enhanced sealing as taught by Lee.
Lee ‘450 teaches a process of preparing buoyancy members, comprising using spray gun 29, additional chopped glass filled resin is now sprayed over the exposed surfaces of tubular elements 7, including end caps 12, until the 5 entire assembly of tubular elements is completely enclosed by the sprayed layer of fiber-filled uncured resin (Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 3-14). Lee ‘450 teaches the entire mold assembly, with the completed but uncured buoyancy member 6 thereon, is transferred into a curing oven and the resin of the sprayed layer thermally cured in known fashion (Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 3-14).
While McCollum in view of Wu and Lee teaches repeated application of reinforcement layers, McCollum in view of Wu and Lee is silent to the technique of curing or hardening the layers, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCollum in view of Wu and Lee with the oven curing technique of Lee ‘450, a known suitable technique for curing.
Regarding claim 2, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein steps (B) through (E) are executed in sequence (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising the step of: vacuum-forming the ABS plastic panel into the desired body through the thermoforming machine during step (B) (McCollum, [0038] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising the step of: press-molding the ABS plastic panel into the desired body through the thermoforming machine during step (B) (McCollum, [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
providing the at least one reinforcement coating as a single reinforcement coating (Wu, Page 2);
spraying or applying the single reinforcement coating onto the desired body during step (E) (Wu, Page 2); and
curing the single reinforcement coating onto the desired body, and repeating these steps for the plurality of layers (Lee ‘450, Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 3-14).
Regarding claim 9, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising repeatedly applying and curing reinforcement coatings (Lee, Page 3).
Accordingly, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches providing the at least one reinforcement coating as a plurality of reinforcement coatings;
spraying or applying an arbitrary coating onto the desired body during step
(E), wherein the arbitrary coating is any coating from the plurality of reinforcement
coatings;
curing the arbitrary coating onto the desired body; and
repeating step (E) for a subsequent coating, after the arbitrary coating dries
onto the desired body, wherein the subsequent coating is from the plurality of
reinforcement coatings.
Regarding claim 13, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising the step of trimming excess material form the desired body after step (E) for performing the finished article (McCollum, [0060]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollum (PG-PUB 2004/0145092) in view of Wu (Machine Translation of CN113581361A), Lee (Machine Translation of KR102160373), and Lee ‘450 (US 4,057,450), as applied to claim 1, in further view of -Belyeu (PG-PUB 2006/0065181).
Regarding claim 5, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising the step of: vacuum-forming the ABS plastic panel into the desired body through the thermoforming machine during step (B) (McCollum, [0038] and [0045]).
McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 does not teach rotational-molding the ABS plastic panel into the desired body through the thermoforming machine during step (B).
Belyeu teaches modular kayaks comprising hulls formed via traditional rotational molding processes, fiber-composite lay-up methods, blow-molding, injection molding, thermoforming, or vacuum forming [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermoforming process of McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 with rotational molding, a known suitable molding technique for manufacturing hulls as taught by Belyeu.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollum (PG-PUB 2004/0145092) in view of Wu (Machine Translation of CN113581361A), Lee (Machine Translation of KR102160373), and Lee ‘450 (US 4,057,450), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Wang (Machine Translation of CN109591325).
Regarding claim 6, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising:
providing a quantity of alcohol as the quantity of cleaning agent and
applying the quantity of alcohol to at least one exposed surface of the desired body during step (C) (Wu, Page 2, step 11).
McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 does not explicitly teach using acetone and initiating step (D), once the quantity of acetone dries off the exposed surface of the desired body.
Wang teaches using acetone or alcohol to clean a transition zone and drying it before glue and primer coating (Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCollum in view of Wu with substituting the alcohol cleaning agent of Wu with acetone applied and dried prior to further coating, a known suitable cleaning agent and application technique as taught by Wang, to yield the predictable result of cleaning the surface prior to applying coating.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollum (PG-PUB 2004/0145092) in view of Wu (Machine Translation of CN113581361A), Lee (Machine Translation of KR102160373), and Lee ‘450 (US 4,057,450), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sturtevant (PG-PUB 2001/0046588).
Regarding claim 7, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 does not teach the resin-bonding temperature is about 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
Sturtevant teaches a process of manufacturing marine docks and decks and bathtubs [0002], comprising a step of spraying a thermosetting elastomeric polymer such as, for example, polyurea prepolymers and polymers, hybrid prepolymers
and polymers such as hybrid polyurea polyurethane polymers in which the polyurea bonds predominate, and other polyether resins generally including epoxy resins,
for example [0032]. Sturtevant teaches a heat treatment preferably in the range of 100 to 200°F, and especially above 120°F, for a time in the range of 30 to 60 seconds, in order to harden the sprayed polymer material and durably bond it onto the base material [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 with the heat treatment range of Sturtevant after each reinforcement coating, a known suitable temperature range for curing sprayed polyurea.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to select a temperature within the prior art temperature range of 100 to 200°F, including of 130°F.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollum (PG-PUB 2004/0145092) in view of Wu (Machine Translation of CN113581361A), Lee (Machine Translation of KR102160373), and Lee ‘450 (US 4,057,450), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Visser (US 5,851,606).
Regarding claim 12, McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 does not teach providing a supplemental reinforcement material; and
integrating the supplemental reinforcement material into the reinforcement
layer before step (E).
Visser teaches a process of manufacturing a bath-tub (Col 5, ln 52-60), comprising a step of preparing mixture of glass fibers and liquid polyester resin and sprayed the mixture on the outer surface of the bath-tub in order to reinforce the overall
strength of the shaped article (Col 7, ln 6-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of McCollum in view of Wu, Lee, and Lee ‘450 with fibers in the reinforcement coating applied to the outer surface of the article, for the benefit of strengthening the article as taught by Visser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745