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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP5420166 see abstract, col.1, col. 2 lines 32-60, cols. 4- col. 5 lines 15, Examples and Tables I and II in view of USP6245822 see abstract, cols. 1-4, col. 7 lines 6-15, Examples 17-19 and claim 12.
Claim 1 is directed to a body composition comprising: a bulk molded compound (BMC) comprising: one or more thermoset resins; one or more fillers; one or more reinforcements; one or more binders; two or more inhibitors; and recycled body composition materials (recycled BMC); wherein the recycled BMC is a cured material that is processed and added into the body composition.
USP5420166 discloses cured BMC/SMC materials containing thermoset resin, fillers, glass and fiber reinforcement and a resin binder. The first step of the method is the attrition of the cured unsaturated polyester to form particulates thereof. In the next step of the process, at least a fraction of any filler or fiberglass in the cured unsaturated polyester is separated to form a cured unsaturated polyester re grind. The next step is the subjecting of the cured unsaturated polyester regrind to agitated, uncatalyzed or catalyzed glycolysis in the presence of excess glycol and, optionally, a transesterification catalyst under agitation at elevated transesterification temperature. The final step of the process is the recovery of the recycle alcohol reactant for use in the synthesis of alcohol formed derivative products. The glycolysis reaction is conducted under agitation in order to keep the cured unsaturated polyester regrind solids suspended during the glycolysis reaction. The cured material is then grounded or reduced in size and recycled for use in a new resin product. See abstract, col. 2 lines 32-60, cols. 4- col. 5 lines 15, Examples and Tables I and II.
USP5420166 does not disclose two or more inhibitors.
USP6245822 discloses using inhibitor antioxidants and reducing agents as noted in Examples 17-19 and claim 12 which state that the antioxidant or reducing agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of hydroquinone, methoquinone, benzoquinone, naphthoguinone, butyl catechol, butyl hydroquinone, Sodium hypophosphite, Sodium thiosulfate and ascorbic acid. See col. 7 lines 6-15, Examples 17-19 and claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of USP5420166 and USP6245822 to obtain recycled thermoset materials to be reused in molded materials components since both references are directed to the recovering of cured thermoset materials for reuse in order to reduce waste. Additionally, USP6245822 discloses the use of inhibitor antioxidants and reducing agents which correspond to the claimed inhibitors.
Claim 2 is directed to the body composition of claim 1, wherein recycled BMC is added in an amount of about five percent or more of a total weight of the body composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of recycled BMC as a matter of routine experimentation to obtain desired material properties. It is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 3 is directed to the body composition of claim 2, wherein the recycled BMC comprises a cured bulk molded compound resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since USP5420166 teaches recycling cured bulk molded compound (BMC/SMC) thermoset materials.
Claim 4 is directed to the body composition of claim 2, wherein the recycled BMC comprises a cured poly(methyl methacrylate) PMMA resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute PMMA as one of the recycled thermoset resin materials because PMMA was a well-known molding resin used in various types of composites.
Claim 5 is directed to the body composition of claim 1, wherein the recycled BMC comprises a mixture of a cured bulk molded compound resin material and a cured poly(methyl methacrylate) PMMA resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the known recycled thermoset materials to obtain predictable properties in the final material. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069,1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 6 is directed to the body composition of claim 5, wherein the recycled BMC is present in an amount of about ten percent or more of a total weight of the body composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the recycled BMC to achieve the desired strength, cost and processability. It is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 7 is directed to the body composition of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement is chopped glass fibers and crushed glass and the reinforcement is present in an amount from about 5 percent or more to about 30 percent or less by weight of the total weight of the BMC. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since glass fiber reinforcement was well known in bulk molded compound compositions and optimizing the reinforcement amount would have been routine experimentation. Note that it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 8 is directed to the body composition of claim 1, wherein the two or more inhibitors are three different inhibitors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more inhibitors because USP6245822 teaches the use of a number of antioxidants and reducing agents and selecting more than one inhibitor would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claim 9 is directed to a lighting component comprising: a body component comprising: a body composition comprising: a bulk molded compound resin (BMC); one or more fillers; two or more inhibitors; and recycled body composition materials (recycled BMC); wherein the recycled BMC is cured material of the body composition that is processed and added into the body composition.
USP5420166 discloses recycling cured thermoset resin materials by glycolysis to produce recycled resin that can be used in newer molded thermoset compositions containing fillers and reinforcing materials. See abstract, cols.1- 3 and claim 1.
USP6245822 discloses the decomposition and the recovery of cured thermosetting resin materials for reuse in molded articles by contacting the cured resin with a glycol decomposition fluid and recovering the reusable materials. See abstract, col. 6 and 9 and particularly col. 12 lines 3-15, Examples 4, Examples 5-7 and Examples 11-12 and claims 1, 13 -14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of USP5420166 and USP6245822 to obtain recycled thermoset materials to be reused in molded materials components since both references are directed to the recovering of cured thermoset materials of reuse in order to reduce waste and convert raw materials.
Claim 10 is directed to the lighting component of claim 9, further comprising: a coating located directly on the body component so that the coating connects directly to the body component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating directly on the body component because the direct coating of a molded article it is well known that the direct coating of a molded article improves the adhesiveness and may eliminate the need for intermediate layers.
Claim 11 is directed to the lighting component of claim 9, wherein the recycled BMC is present in an amount of about 5 percent or more and about 20 percent less of the total weight of the body composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the recycled BMC as a matter of routine experimentation to obtain the desired material properties. Note that it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 12 is directed to the lighting component of claim 1, wherein the recycled BMC comprises a mixture of a cured bulk molded compound resin material and a cured poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) resin material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of recycled BMC and PMMA because both materials were known resin materials used for molding compositions and combining known resin materials for the same general purpose would have been expected to produce a workable molding composition. Note that generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069,1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 13 is directed to the lighting component of claim 9, wherein the recycled BMC has a hardness that is three Mohs or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a recycled BMC having a hardness that is three Mohs or more because hardness is a property that would have been optimized for the intended application. It is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Claim 14 is directed to the lighting component of claim 10, wherein the body composition is free of a base coat between the body composition and the coating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since direct coating of composite or multiple substrates was a known method that would simplify manufacturing.
Claim 15 is directed to the lighting component of claim 14, wherein the one or more fillers comprise clay, talc, alumina trihydrate, glass, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the claimed fillers are conventional fillers used in bulk molded compound compositions.
Claim 16 is directed to the lighting component of claim 15, wherein the one or more fillers are present in an amount from about 40 percent to about 80 percent by weight of the BMC.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve the desired strength, weight and processing characteristics. It is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim 17 is directed to the lighting component of claim 16, wherein recycled BMC is added as one of the one or more fillers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since recycled composite material was already known to contain reinforcing fillers that could be reused. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended purpose. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (Selection of solvent having boiling point and vapor pressure properties recognized as being ideal for printing inks into printing ink compositions found obvious on its face). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (Selection of a known plastic to make a plastic container found obvious on its face).
Claim 18 is directed to the lighting component of claim 9, wherein the body composition comprises virgin poly(methyl methacrylate) PMMA resin in addition to the BMC resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of recycled BMC and PMMA because using virgin materials with recycled materials in polymer processes is well-known in the art and combining those known materials for the same general purpose would have been expected to produce a workable molding composition. Note that generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069,1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 19 is directed to a process comprising: forming a bulk molded compound (BMC) comprising: one or more thermoset resins; one or more fillers; one or more reinforcements; and one or more binders; combining the bulk molded compound with recycled body composition materials (recycled BMC), that has been cured, to form a body composition; molding the body composition into a body component of a lighting component; and curing the BMC.
USP5420166 discloses reducing cured thermoset material to particles, glycolyzing the material, recovering recycled resin, and incorporating the recycled resin into new molded thermoset compositions. See abstract, See abstract, cols.1- 3 and claim 1.
USP6245822 discloses reducing the size of cured thermoset articles, contacting the material with a glycol decomposition fluid recovering reusable resin materials and reusing those materials in new molded products. See claims 2-18.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processes taught by
USP5420166 and USP6245822B1 since both references discloses recovering and reusing cured thermoset materials to manufacture new molded articles while reusing waste and material costs.
Claim 20 is directed to the process of claim 19, further comprising: processing the recycled BMC by reducing a size of the recycled BMC, wherein the recycled BMC is present in an amount of about 5 percent or more and about 20 percent less of the total weight of the body composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since reducing the particle size of a moiety is a conventional prepossessing step that improves mixing and helps the incorporation of moieties into a new composition.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights