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 .
1.Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1, step 2 sets forth various steps to form components A and B and then to mix the components to form an adhesive. However, there is no recitation as to actually using this adhesive in the preparation of anything. It is also noted that the preamble of claim 1 sets forth an adhesive that bonds the base plate and the melamine decorative paper. It is not clear whether this adhesive is the one recited in step 2 or not. Given that the adhesive recited in step 2 is apparently for the base plate, then such would apparently not be so. Clarification is required for the operations set forth “to obtain an adhesive” as set forth at (page) line 17 of instant claim 1 as to how such adhesive is actually being used. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the preparation of the adhesive in step 2 of claim 1 constitutes a method of making an adhesive that is optionally to be used in forming the base plate—ie, the recitations do not necessarily have to be met to meet the clam. The same applies to claims 2-5 and 8 which further limit the adhesive preparation of step 2 of claim 1.
2.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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104588393 (see the Abstract) in view of Song 2017/0298639 (see 1, 5 and 3 in Fig. 2; paragraph 0096) either alone, or further in view of CN 114524927 (see the Abstract).
CN -393 discloses the basic claimed base plate for a waterproof board formed by melting and wire drawing a fiber glass cloth to make a mat or fiber net, forming circuit board powder from a pretreated waste circuit board and mixing same with an adhesive, paving the mixture layer by layer with the fiber net to form a slab, prepressing the slab and then hot pressing to form the board. Essentially, the primary reference lacks the aspects of a melamine decorative paper adhered to the base plate, the use of a sizing agent and the formation of the instant cardanol adhesive. Song (see Fig. 2) discloses a board made from crushed printed circuit board powders wherein a base plate (1) is adhered to a decorative layer (3) of melamine paper—see paragraph 0096. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the base plate of CN -393 as taught by Song to provide a more aesthetically pleasing base material as is conventional in the art. It is further submitted that the use of a sizing agent is conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious reagent to use in the formation of the base plate in the primary reference to tailor the physical properties of the fiber net as is well known. It is noted that instant claim 1 calls for the preparation of a cardanol adhesive but does not contain any language as to how the adhesive is related to the product. As such, it is submitted that the recitation of the adhesive preparation in claim 1 constitutes limitations that do not have to be met. Ie, the structure of instant claim 1 is met in the combination of
CN -393 and Song. Additionally, it is noted that claim 1 recites a product, and hence the exact steps used to make the product—or any component thereof-- are germane to the patentability of the product only in whatever physical or chemical properties that would be imparted to the product by such steps. Hence, assuming that the cardanol adhesive is used for the base plate, a teaching of such an adhesive would be needed in the rejection. CN -927 discloses a cardanol adhesive made from a polyol and isocyanate reaction and it is submitted that this adhesive would render the adhesive recited in instant claim 1 as obvious. Again, the exact steps used to make the adhesive would not impart patentability to the product if the adhesives being made are obvious over each other, which is believed to be the case concerning this. CN -927 teaches a cardanol adhesive that would have been an obvious adhesive to use in the product of the primary reference dependent on exact adhesive properties desired. Hence, while claim 1 is submitted to be validly rejected with CN -393 and Song as already noted, the addition of CN -927 to the rejection would cover the cardanol adhesive, should –and wherever- it is to be used in the product. Instant claims 2-5, 7 and 8 recite preparation steps that do not affect the product in a structural sense and hence are submitted to constitute limitations that do not have to be met. It is submitted that the exact mesh of the fiber net as set forth in claim 6 would have been an obvious feature in the net of the primary reference dependent on physical properties(ie, strength) desired for the board. The method of claim 9 is met in the combination of CN -393 and Song, with the aging of three days at essentially room temperature submitted to be an obvious aspect readable on storing the board.
3.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