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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedblom [US 5777791] in view of Haunschild [US 20020090492].
Claim 1: Hedblom teaches a reactive article for pavement markers [abstract], comprising applying a binder to a surface [col 4, ln 30-31], and embedding the Type A microspheres and plurality of Type B microspheres onto the binder layer [col 4, ln 30-35], wherein Hedblom teaches the microspheres are dropped onto the binder layer (scattered and/or flood coated) [col 10, ln 48-60] (Hedblom also teaches it is well known in the art to drop retroreflective aggregates onto a freshly applied binder layer [col 1, ln 45-50] and that microspheres can be dropped and becomes indented into the coating [col 6, ln 24-26]). Hedblom also teaches Type A microspheres can be of non-vitreous ceramic microspheres and Type B can be of glass microspheres [col, ln 30-33], wherein Hedblom, incorporating by reference of Wood, US 4772511, to the types of non-vitreous that can be used [col 5, ln 15-22], Wood teaches the non-vitreous microspheres as retroreflective [col 3, ln 60-65]. However, the prior art fails to explicitly teach the markings have a skid resistance up to 82 BPN. Haunschild is provided.
Haunschild teaches that a maximum value of about 64 BPN to about 90 BPN is typically suitable for pavement markings because it is known to provide sufficient skid resistance, which can be adjusted by amount of retroreflective elements [0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a skid resistance of up to 82 BPN since Haunschild teaches this range is an desirable amount of skid resistance for pavement markings.
Claim 2: Hedblom teaches the microspheres are positioned on top of the binder [Fig. 1].
Claim 3: Hedblom teaches a yellow dye could be added to the microspheres which could be used to make a yellow pavement marker [col 5, ln 60-67], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the microspheres as the same color such as yellow to match the desired pavement color.
Claims 4-6: Although the prior art does not explicitly teach dropping the glass material before dropping the retroflective elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of ways one could deposit the elements, e.g. first dropping the glass and then the retroflective elements, first dropping the retroflective and then the glass elements, or dropping both the retroflective and glass elements at the same time.
Claim 7: Haunschild teaches that it is well known in the pavement marking field that standard retroreflective elements are sized with standard sieve collecting those passing through a 16 US Mesh and retained by 35 US Mesh [0079]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed average size as suggested by the prior art since Haunschild teaches these are typical sizes of retroreflective elements used.
Claim 8: Hedblom teaches the glass elements are smaller than the non0vitreous ceramic microspheres [col 5, ln 20-22].
Claim 9: Haunschild teaches that a maximum value of about 64 BPN to about 90 BPN is typically suitable for pavement markings because it is known to provide sufficient skid resistance, which can be adjusted by amount of retroreflective elements [0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a skid resistance of up to 82 BPN since Haunschild teaches this range is an desirable amount of skid resistance for pavement markings.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedblom in view of Haunschild as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hachey [AU703175].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claims 11-12. Hachey is provided.
Claims 11-12: Hachey teaches a process of making retroreflective element [abstract], wherein the optical elements are heated to allow for the elements to sink to an appropriate level in the thermoplastic core/elements [pg 3, ln 15-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat the glass or retroreflective elements before dropping the glass or retroreflective elements onto the binder in order to sufficiently embed the elements into the binder surface layer as suggested by Hachey.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedblom in view of Haunschild as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dejoux [WO0248461].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the glass elements are manufactured from recycled glass. Dejoux is provided.
Claim 13: Dejoux teaches the use of colored glass beads made from abundant and very cheap recycled glass creates a new outlet for waste and makes a much less expensive product [pg 5, para 12-13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glass elements from recycled glass to be more cost effective and environmentally friendly.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedblom in view of Haunschild as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Budd [WO2009085550].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the binder is colorless. Budd is provided.
Claim 21: Budd teaches typically retroreflective articles typically include a plurality of retroreflective elements partially embedded in a transparent (colored or non-colored), non-light-scattering, non-reflective binder (for example a clear, colorless, polymeric binder) [pg 12, ln 20-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide either a colored or non-colored such as a colorless polymeric binder since Budd teaches both are operable binders for retroreflective articles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights