1.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 and 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole 6,484,455 in view of Donelly et al 7,311,216 and further in view of Albertelli 2011/0262701 (see paragraph 0032) and Koyanagi et al 4,126,719 (see col. 2, line 57 to col. 3, line 20).
Poole and Donelly et al are applied for reasons of record, the references teaching the basic claimed method lacking essentially the use of a veil which is positioned on the thermoplastic sheet and wherein the pressure causes the veil to embed at least partially into the thermoplastic sheet. Albertelli discloses forming composite products with a simulated stone surface (see paragraph 0005) wherein a protective layer including a mesh or veil or fabric is formed on the outer periphery of the product –see paragraph 0032. Note also that such a layer is porous to curable plastic material during a pressing step so that the material flows through the layer—ie, the layer becomes at least partially embedded in the curable plastic which would comprise a sheet molding compound (SMC). While it is noted that Albertelli employs thermosetting fiber reinforced plastics and Poole and Donelly are primarily directed to thermoplastic fiber reinforced plastics, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would understand that a pressing operation with a veil and either a thermoset or a thermoplastic resin would have in common the flow of the material upon initial heating and pressing, even if the plastic material itself is different. In other words, it would be expected that a flow of material –either from a melt of the thermoplastic or a heated, fluid mass of thermosetting material—would be the result of pressing either plastic under heating and that such a flow would cause the veil to be embedded at least partially to the plastic. It is clear that a flow of the thermosetting plastic occurs in Albertelli and there would also be a flow of the thermoplastic in Donelly et al—see column 1, lines 53-63. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of the combination as applied by employing a veil as taught in Albertelli to provide a protective and decorative outer layer that would be embedded in the underlying plastic material making up the molded window well. It is conventional to employ such veils to also provide a decorative effect as taught by Munoz et al (see the above noted passage) and such would be an additional teaching to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the veil of Albertelli in the combination of Poole and Donelly et al. Newly added claims 18-21 are submitted to be obvious in the combination as applied. The veil would obviously be on the outer surface of the formed product so that it is embedded therein and visible to a user. The simulated stone appearance taught in Koyanagi et al would provide the texture set forth in instant claim 20.
2.Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, In view of the amendments to the claims and applicant’s comments, new art to Albertelli and Koyanagi et al has been applied which fairly teaches the use of a veil to incorporate a desired texture or design upon the outer surface of a formed product, with the veil being embedded into the plastic of the product. It is clear from Albertelli and Koyanagi et al that veils—open mesh fabrics—are conventional in the art to impart a protective and decorative effect on the outer surface of molded panels and that such would be embedded into the plastic of such panels during the molding thereof. It would not be inventive to employ such veils in the forming of a window well which is itself comprised of a number of panels.
3.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.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742