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
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, 8-12, 16-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts et al. (US 2014/0080973).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 21, Alberts discloses a composite panel (abstract, 0083) comprising individual layers, i.e. one individual layer corresponds to claimed core layer and another individual layer corresponds to claimed surface layer bonded to the core layer, (0029) wherein the composite panel comprises 20 to 98 wt% of filler in form of particles such as powder or dust and fibers (abstract, 0004, 0009, 0023) bonded with a resin (0035) and the resin comprising a polymer derived from aliphatic polyalcohol with 2-15 carbon atoms such as glycerol, i.e. an aliphatic polyol with 2-15 carbon atoms, (abstract) with an aliphatic polyacid comprising tricarboxylic acid, i.e. aliphatic polycarboxylic acid with 3-15 carbon atoms, (abstract, 0049). Therefore, when the core layer of Alberts comprising 20 to 98 wt% of particles such as powder or dust bonded with a resin wherein the particles have aspect ratio of at least 3 (0024), it meets the claimed limitation of core layer comprises particulate material bonded with a resin and when the surface layer comprises 20 to 98 wt% of fibers bonded with a resin wherein the fibers have aspect ratio of at least 10 (0024), it meets the claimed limitation of surface layer comprises fibrous material bonded with a resin.
With respect to the limitation of the polymer has an extent of polymerization of at least 0.6, it is noted that Alberts discloses ratio between the number of OH group and the number of acid groups which includes 1:1 (0056). Therefore, it is clear that the extent of polymerization of Alberts would overlap that presently claimed.
With respect to the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, Alberts discloses that the polymer makes it possible to obtain flame retardant properties without the use of flame retardant additives (0088).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flame retardant properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of resin content in the core layer and the surface layer including that presently claimed to obtain the desired flame retardant properties wherein having more polymer in the surface layer would provide greater flame retardance on the surface and help to inhibit the further spread of flames into the core layer (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein given that the composite panel comprising individual layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use as many individual layers as needed including 3 layers structure as presently claimed to meet end users requirements.
Regarding claim 3, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the thickness of panel is 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083) therefore when the core layer has a thickness of 1.5 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Regarding claim 8, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses surface layer on the core layer as explained above and therefore it is clear that at least top and/or bottom side of the panel is covered with at least one surface layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the resin content of the panel is at least 2 wt% (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 1 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed thickness, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 12, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the polyacid comprises at least 50 wt% of tricarboxylic acid (0049) and/or the polyol consists of at least 50 mole% of glycerol (0038).
Regarding claim 16, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses the panel comprising individual layers as explained above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any number of individual layer including two surface layers as presently claimed to meet end users requirements.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 1 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed thickness, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding particulate material aspect ratio, Alberts discloses particulate material is powder (0023) which would necessarily have aspect ratio less than 10:1. Further, Alberts discloses platelike particulate have aspect ratio of at least 3 which would overlap the presently claimed value.
Alberts does not specifically disclose a density of the core layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a density of core layer according to the end users requirement of the weight of the panel as a lighter panel would require lower density as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1, wherein Alberts discloses polycarboxylic acid is citric acid, i.e. polycarboxylic acid comprises 100 wt% of citric acid, (0054) and the polyol consists of at least at least 95 mole% of glycerol (0039).
Regarding the ratio of the resin content, Alberts discloses that the polymer makes it possible to obtain flame retardant properties without the use of flame retardant additives (0088). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flame retardant properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of a resin content in the core layer to a total resin content in the surface layer, the precise ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of resin content in the core layer and the surface layer including that presently claimed to obtain the desired flame retardant properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding a ratio of a thickness, the panel have thickness in the range of 1 mm to 4 cm and in particular 2 mm to 2.5 cm (0083). When the core layer has a thickness of 5 mm and the skin layer has a thickness of 1 mm, it meets the present claim.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberts et al. (US 2014/0080973) in view of Galle (US 2017/0320287).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 18, Alberts discloses the panel of claim 1 but fails to disclose fiber being Jute or flax with a length of at least 4 cm.
Galle discloses composite board comprising jute or flax fiber with a length of at least 4 cm to obtain low density, less abrasive behavior, good dimensional stability and harmlessness (0024-0025 and 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the specific fiber of Galle in the panel including the surface layer of Alberts to obtain low density, less abrasive behavior, good dimensional stability and harmlessness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s position that one could arrive at the present invention by selecting particles for a core layer and fibers for a surface layer from Albert’s general disclosure is based on impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that Alberts fails to disclose presently claimed aspect ratios. However, it is noted that Alberts does disclose presently claimed aspect ratios as explained above.
Applicant argues that Alberts provides no teaching that varying resin content between different layers in this specific manner would achieve this combination of benefits. Examiner notes that Alberts does not explicitly disclose the claimed language, however, it is noted that given that Alberts discloses panels comprising individual layers and the polymer makes it possible to obtain flame retardant properties without the use of flame retardant additives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at present claims as explained above and absent evidence to contrary. Further, it is noted that the rejection is based on 103 obviousness.
Applicant argues that Galle does not cure the deficiencies of Alberts. However, note that while Galle does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Galle is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely composite board comprising jute or flax fiber with a length of at least 4 cm to obtain low density, less abrasive behavior, good dimensional stability and harmlessness, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights