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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-19 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear whether the skin portion comprises or consists of a high impact polystyrene copolymer; or a polystyrene copolymer. Appropriate correction is required. Further, it is confusing as to what is meant by the core portion (2). The “(2)” should be removed from the claim to avoid an issue of confusion.
As to claims 3 and 11, replacement of transversal direction with “transverse direction” is appropriate in accordance with US Patent Practice.
As to claim 14, substitution of “microns” for “micron” is necessary to avoid a grammatical error.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 634 210 to Cottyn (hereinafter “Cottyn”) further in view of US 2023/0405980 to Navez et al. (hereinafter “Navez”).
As to claim 1 and 6, Cottyn discloses a composite profile for a decorative panel, extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end, and comprising a front surface and a back surface (figure 3), comprising: (i) a core layer comprising a polystyrene foam extending in said longitudinal direction, said core layer comprising polystyrene foam with a density of 100 to 300 kg/m3 (paragraph 34); (ii) a skin layer partially surrounding the core portion at least in said longitudinal direction, with a density of 700 to 1050 kg/m3 (paragraphs 39 and 40). The skin layer can be a non-foamed layer because the density of a non-foamed polystyrene is 1050 kg/m3.
Cottyn discloses that the core surfaces at the two extremities of the composite profile are not covered by the skin layer because these surfaces are fixed against the wall, and thus hidden in use (paragraph 38). Therefore, the skin layer of the profile has a non-uniform thickness in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction because the skin layer has a zero thickness at the two extremities of the profile.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cottyn does not explicitly disclose (i) the skin layer comprising a high impact polystyrene copolymer; and (ii) the polystyrene profile having a combined density of 200-360 kg/m3.
Navez, however, discloses a composite material as a skirting board having a foam core at least partially covered with a skin layer wherein the foam core has a lower density than the skin layer (abstract; and paragraph 38). The foam core has a density of no more than 300 kg/m3 while the skin layer has a density of at least 800 kg/m3 (abstract). The foam core is a polystyrene foam layer (paragraph 21). The skin layer is made of high impact polystyrene copolymer, that would inherently exhibit a strain at break of more than 30% and a Young’s modulus of more than 1800 MPa as like material has like property (paragraph 25). The composite material has a combined density 230-244 kg/m3 (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use high impact polystyrene copolymer disclosed in Navez for the skin layer disclosed in Cottyn, motivated by the desire to improve hardness of the composite profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composite profile disclosed in Cottyn having a combined density disclosed in Navez, motivated by the desire to provide a favorable combination of low weight and hardness.
As to claim 2, Cottyn discloses that the core layer comprises a styrenic polymer composition including minor proportions of non-styrenic polymers (paragraph 45).
As to claim 3, Cottyn discloses that the core surfaces at the two extremities of the composite profile are not covered by the skin layer because these surfaces are fixed against the wall, and thus hidden in use (paragraph 38). As the back surface of the composite profile is not visible during use, it is acceptable to eliminate the skin layer on the back surface so as to reduce the cost of material. The minimal thickness of the front surface skin layer is thus 100% greater than that of the back surface skin layer, which has no skin layer at all.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the skin layer at the back surface, which is thinner than the skin layer at the front surface of the composite profile because this is an alternative approach to reduce the cost of the material without compromising the hardness of the composite profile.
As to claim 4, Cottyn discloses that the composite profile is prepared by coextruding the foam core with the skin layer (paragraph 14). Since there is no interruptions or modifications during the coextruding process, the thickness of the skin layer on both the back and front surfaces of the foam layer should remain constant.
As to claim 5, Cottyn discloses that the skin layer on both the back and front surfaces of the foam layer has a thickness of 0.2 to 0.8 mm. This overlaps the claimed range.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the thicknesses of the skin layer on both the front and back surfaces of the foam core will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the thicknesses of the skin layer on both the front and back surfaces of the foam core are critical or provide unexpected results.
As to claim 11, Cottyn discloses that the composite profile has a homogeneous density and resistant to delamination (paragraph 32). This is a clear indication that the core layer comprises a constant average foam density, in at least the transverse direction.
As to claim 13, Cottyn does not explicitly disclose the foam core having a compression strength of at least 2 N/mm2. However, it appears that the foam cores of Cottyn and the claimed invention are made of the styrene copolymer foam having a density within the claimed range. Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the compression strength of at least 2 N/mm2 would inherently be present as like material has like property.
As to claim 15, neither Cottyn nor Navez discloses or suggests an adhesion strength of the skin layer and the core layer within the range of 2-7 N/mm2. However, it appears that composite profile of Cottyn as modified by Navez meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The resulting composite profile extends longitudinally from a first end to a second end, and comprising a front surface and a back surface, and comprises: (i) a core layer comprising a polystyrene foam extending in said longitudinal direction, said core layer comprising polystyrene foam with a density of 100 to 300 kg/m3; (ii) a skin layer surrounding the core portion at least in said longitudinal direction, with a density of 700 to 1050 kg/m3. The composite profile has a homogeneous density and resistant to delamination. This is a clear indication that the core layer comprises a constant average foam density, in at least the transverse direction.
The resulting skin layer is a non-foamed layer because the density of a non-foamed polystyrene is 1050 kg/m3. The resulting skin layer of the profile has a non-uniform thickness in a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction because the skin layer has a zero thickness at the two extremities of the profile. The resulting skin layer comprises a high impact polystyrene copolymer and the polystyrene profile having a combined density of 200-360 kg/m3. The composite profile is manufactured by a coextrusion process.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the adhesion strength of the skin layer and the core layer in the range of 2-7 N/mm2 would inherently be present as like material has like property.
As to claim 16, Cottyn discloses that the composite profile comprises sharp edges with a radius R of 1 mm or less (paragraph 82).
As to claim 17, Cottyn discloses that the composite profile is manufactured by a coextrusion process (paragraph 14).
As to claim 18, Cottyn discloses that a lubricant is introduced in an apparatus in such a way to lubricant the entire outer surface of the skin layer wherein the lubricant can be fatty acid amide, polyethylene wax, styrene wax or silicone oil (paragraphs 66 and 67). The alternative limitation indicates that the lubricant does not include silicone oil; thus, the composite profile is devoid of any silicone oil residue.
Claims 7-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottyn in view of Navez as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2016/0215508 to Kimel (hereinafter “Kimel”).
As to claims 7-10, neither Cottyn nor Navez discloses or suggests the back surface of the composite profile comprising:
(i) at least two longitudinally extending support portions, said support portions comprising a part of the core layer and a part of the skin layer;
(ii) a suspended portion between two support portions, said suspended portion having a length within the range of 1 to 50 cm;
(iii) at least two support portions having respective support surfaces which are coplanar, and wherein a minimal distance between the suspended portion and a plane defined by respective coplanar support portions is at least 0.5 mm; and
(iv) a lower surface, and wherein the suspended portion is arranged at a distance from the lower surface within a range of 1 to 50 cm.
Kimel, however, discloses a baseboard 102 having a front surface 106 and a back surface 108, and a bottom surface 110 extending between the front and back surfaces, the back surface configured to be mounted against a wall; the bottom surface configured to be positioned space apart from a floor adjoining the wall (abstract; and figure 1). A seal 104 is mounted on the bottom surface of the baseboard. The baseboard has a height in a range of 3 to 6 in. or 7.6 to 15.2 cm (paragraph 18). The baseboard is made of a plastic material (paragraph 20). The back surface includes one or more grooves 109 and each of which corresponding to the claimed suspended portion. The portions of the back surface other than the grooves correspond to the support portions which are coplanar. Given that the height of the baseboard is from 7.6 to 15.2 cm, the length of the groove and the distance of the groove from the bottom surface, each must be less than 7.6 cm. These overlap the claimed ranges. Given that the width of the baseboard of 0.5 inch or 1.27 cm (paragraph 18), a minimal distance between the groove ad a plane defined by respective coplanar support portions must be less than 1.27 cm. This overlaps the claimed range.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the length of the groove, the minimal distance between the groove and the plane, and the distance from the bottom surface to the groove will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the length of the groove, the minimal distance between the groove and the plane, and the distance from the bottom surface to the groove are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the length of the groove, the minimal distance between the groove and the plane, and the distance from the bottom surface to the groove in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to promote installation of the baseboard at the wall. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 19, neither Cottyn nor Navez discloses or suggests a primer being provided on the front surface.
Kimel, however, discloses a baseboard 102 having a front surface 106 and a back surface 108, and a bottom surface 110 extending between the front and back surfaces, the back surface configured to be mounted against a wall; the bottom surface configured to be positioned space apart from a floor adjoining the wall (abstract; and figure 1). A seal 104 is mounted on the bottom surface of the baseboard. The baseboard has a height in a range of 3 to 6 in. or 7.6 to 15.2 cm (paragraph 18). The baseboard is made of a plastic material (paragraph 20). Kimel also discloses that an adhesive material is used to secure the baseboard to the wall (paragraph 28). Thus, an adhesive material is provided on one of the surfaces of the baseboard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adhesive material disclosed in Kimel on one of the surfaces of the composite profile disclosed in Cottyn/Navez motivated by the desire to secure the baseboard to the wall.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottyn in view of Navez as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2005/0112356 to Rynd et al. (hereinafter “Rynd”).
Neither Cottyn nor Navez discloses or suggests that core layer comprising 50% of all foam cells having a diameter of 100 µm or less and 95% of all foam cells having a diameter of 400 µm or less.
Rynd, however, discloses a polystyrene foam having a density of about 10 to 500 kg/m3, and at least 90% closed cells (paragraph 26). The polystyrene foam has uniform foam cells with a mean cell size of 60 microns (figure 5, and paragraph 31). This at least indicates that 50% of all foam cells has a diameter of 100 µm or less, and 95% of all foam cells has a diameter of 400 µm or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polystyrene foam disclosed in Cotynn/Navez having a cell size distribution disclosed in Rynd, motivated by the desire to provide excellent thermal insulation properties and compressive strength.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottyn in view of Navez as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2011/0040035 to Shields et al. (hereinafter “Shields”).
Neither Cottyn nor Navez discloses the foam core comprising polybutadiene particles having an average diameter within the range of 1 to 7 microns.
Shields, however, discloses a low gloss mass polymerized rubber-modified polystyrene copolymer composition with an excellent balance of aesthetic, physical and mechanical properties (abstract). The rubber-modified polystyrene copolymer composition comprises polystyrene copolymer and polybutadiene rubber particles dispersed therein (paragraphs 68, 83, and 84). The polybutadiene rubber particles have an average particle size of 1.5 to 2 microns (paragraphs 68, 83, and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the polybutadiene rubber particles disclosed in Shields in the foam layer of Cotynn/Navez, motivated by the desire to provide an excellent balance of aesthetic, physical and mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788