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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on July 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that it should be no undue burden on the examiner to consider all the claims in a single application. This is not found persuasive. As evidenced by the different classifications for the different inventions, the inventions have acquired a different status in the art and these different inventions would require a different field of search. The Group I claims require a board containing a particular composition. The manner by which the board is produced is not part of the scope of the Group I invention and does not need to be searched. By comparison, the Group II invention requires particular steps such as stirring and mixing the compositional components for a period of time, pressing and vibrating the composition and curing the composition at a particular temperature. Each of these limitations must be searched in the Group II claims and are not necessarily searched when examining the Group I invention. As such, it follows that the searches are different and that the prior art applicable to one of the inventions would not likely be applicable to the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, each of the claims utilizes tildes between numbers. It is not clear whether these are meant to be dashes in order to represent a conventional presentation of a range (e.g. 64 - 84% by weight) or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required (e.g. replace the tildes with dashes).
Additionally, claim 1 recites “a quartz particle” and “a building material waste particle” in the singular. It is not clear whether, a single quartz particle makes up 64 – 84% by weight of the board or whether a plurality of particles is in view. Similarly, it is not clear whether a single building waste particle is in view.
Further, as to claim 2, different components are recited but they are each in reference to the singular quartz particle. It is not clear whether these are distinct particles that form a blend of particles having different sizes or whether these are somehow agglomerated to each other as a single particle. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (TW 2021/46748) in view of any one of Cai et al. (CN 105271934), Bugiolacchio et al. (US 2025/0091946), Queen (US 11,248,390), Li (US 2020/0115280), Li (US 2020/0115281), Ramon Moreno et al. (US 2012/0115983), Moore et al. (US 2010/0048772) and Harel et al. (US 2009/0104382).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a quartz composite board comprising 90-94% by weight quartz particles, 5.65-9.6% by weight resin, 0.004-0.006% by weight coupling agent and 0.04-0.06% curing agent (Abstract; pages 2-3 of the translation). Lai does not teach replacing a portion of the quartz particles with a building waste material to arrive at amounts of quartz particles and building waste particles as claimed.
However, each of Cai et al. (Abstract; pages 2-4 of translation – waste ceramics of 30-50 mesh size in amounts ranging from 15-30% of the composite composition; ceramics are building materials), Bugiolacchio et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0012]-[0034], [0036], [0070[, [0071]; claim 2; claim 18 utilizing waste glass and/or quartz and/or recovered material to end up with amounts of quartz and building waste material in amounts that overlap the claimed range), Queen (col. 6, lines 20-42 – utilize recycled concrete at 10% or more of the composition to replace aggregates such as quartz), Li ‘280 (Abstract; paragraphs [0019] and [0052] – quartz and recycled glass in amounts that overlap the claimed ranges), Li ‘281 (Abstract; paragraphs [0011], [0035], [0041], [0047], [0048]), Ramon Moreno et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0009]-[0011], [0017]-[0022], [0034] and [0035]; in paragraph [0022] replacing “approximately 40%” of the forming part with waste materials suggests an amount that is sufficiently close to the claimed ranges and reducing a smaller amount than this is even more straightforward; paragraphs [0034] and [0035] - ranges overlap the claimed ranges), Moore et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0009]-[0020], [0061], [0068] – amounts of glass chips and mirror overlap/encompass the claimed range), and Harel et al. (Abstract; Figure 2; paragraphs [0004], [0006], [0008], [0021], [0025], [0028] and [0030]; overlapping ranges of waste/recycled materials used) disclose analogous compositions/composite boards wherein it is disclosed that building waste material particles can be utilized in amounts as claimed and in a way that reduces the amount of the main raw material/quartz as required in order to reduce costs, improve environmental stewardship and produce an article having desired physical properties.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lai and any one of the secondary references and to have added 10-30% by weight of building material waste particles to the composite board of Lai, as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of reducing costs, improving environmental stewardship, and improving product properties (Cai et al.). In combination, the quartz particles and the building material waste particles are taught and suggested to be in amounts that are within/overlap the claimed ranges. The secondary references suggest adding building material waste to the composite board of Lai and this reduces the relative amount of the main/quartz material. Further, from this teaching found in the secondary references, it would have been a routine expedient to determine the amounts of each of the quartz and waste materials to utilize to form a board that is substantially similar/the same as the board of Lai with the now added environmental/cost advantage associated with the added waste/recycled/reclaimed materials. Further still, it is noted that a composite board that has amounts of materials within the claimed ranges is understood to be “environmentally-friendly” to the extent required by the claim. As such, the combination teaches and suggests each and every limitation set forth in the claim.
As to claim 2, Lai teaches the quartz particles as claimed (page 2 of the translation).
As to claim 3, as set forth above, the secondary references teach and suggest waste materials as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 4, Lai teaches utilizing particles of a size within the claimed range (page 2 of the translation). Further, as cited above, the references teach utilizing materials having a size as claimed (e.g. Cai et al. teach the waste has a size ranging from 30-50 mesh, which overlaps the claimed range). The reason to combine Lai et al. and the secondary references is the same as that set forth above. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to have supplied the suggested waste materials from the secondary references at sizes disclosed by Lai as being suitable for the production of the composite board.
As to claim 5, Lai teaches an unsaturated polyester resin, silane coupling agent, and organic peroxide as claimed (page 2 of the translation).
As to claim 6, Lai teaches a colorant (page 2 of the translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 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 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights