DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-15, 7-23 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 3/18/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,306,191 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 2007/0057411, cited in IDS filed 7/19/24) in view of Schleth et al. (US 2016/0237063, cited in IDS filed 7/19/24).
Regarding claim 10: Williams is directed to a polymer based materials comprising ([0003] Williams),
A first surface;
Wherein the first and second surface are formed from a composition comprising a polymeric resin;
The first surface having a first surface energy of at least 40 dynes/cm2 and persists within 20% of the first surface energy for at least 3 months.
Specifically, Example 1-2 discloses a resin surface energy was increased from a first surface energy of 36 dyes to about 48-50 dynes after treatment and molded into an article. Over 6 months the surface energy remained in the 48-50 dyne level. ([0058]-[0059] Williams).
While molded articles made from the polymer composition are disclosed throughout, a construction material having a first and second surface is not mentioned.
Schleth is directed to a polymer composition that can be molded into a variety of articles including a variety of construction materials of siding and profiles of any geometer sheets, wood substitutes, plastic lumber, etc. ([0036] Schleth) (equivalent to polymer based construction material comprising a fist surface and a second surface opposite the first surface). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have made a construction article from the composition suggested by Williams to produce useful articles for commercial applications as taught by Schleth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made a construction article comprising a fist surface and a second surface opposite the first surface from the composition suggested by Williams.
Regarding claims 13-14: The composition suggested by Williams and Schleth does not include a plasticizer including DINP or DIDP.
Regarding claim 18: Williams is directed to a polymer based materials for further surface painting ([0003] Williams), the method comprising:
A first surface;
Wherein the first and second surface are formed from a composition comprising a polymeric resin and a filler;
The first surface having a first surface energy of at least 40 dynes/cm2 and persists within 20% of the first surface energy for at least 3 months.
Specifically, Example 1-2 discloses a resin surface energy was increased from a first surface energy of 36 dyes to about 48-50 dynes after treatment and molded into an article. Over 6 months the surface energy remained in the 48-50 dyne level. ([0058]-[0059] Williams).
While molded articles made from the polymer composition are disclosed throughout, a construction material having a first and second surface is not mentioned.
Schleth is directed to a polymer composition that can be molded into a variety of articles including a variety of construction materials of siding and profiles of any geometer sheets, wood substitutes, plastic lumber, etc. ([0036] Schleth) (equivalent to polymer based construction material comprising a fist surface and a second surface opposite the first surface). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have made a construction article from the composition suggested by Williams to produce useful articles for commercial applications as taught by Schleth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made a construction article comprising a fist surface and a second surface opposite the first surface from the composition suggested by Williams.
Regarding claim 20: A polymer based article of siding, lumber for decks, shingle (roof), moldings etc. are disclosed ([0036] Schleth).
Regarding claim 21: Williams is directed to a polymer based materials for further surface painting ([0003] Williams), the method comprising:
A first surface;
Wherein the first and second surface are formed from a composition comprising a polymeric resin and a filler;
The first surface having a first surface energy of at least 40 dynes/cm2 and persists within 20% of the first surface energy for at least 3 months.
Specifically, Example 1-2 discloses a resin surface energy was increased from a first surface energy of 36 dyes to about 48-50 dynes after treatment and molded into an article. Over 6 months the surface energy remained in the 48-50 dyne level. ([0058]-[0059] Williams).
While molded articles made from the polymer composition are disclosed throughout, a construction material having a first and second surface, wherein the first surface energy is greater than the second surface energy is not mentioned.
Schleth is directed to a polymer composition that can be molded into a variety of articles including a variety of construction materials of siding and profiles of any geometer sheets, that include a first and second surface layered materials formed from a common polymeric composition comprising a polymeric resin, i.e. sheet casting and laminated products thereof ([0035] [0036] Schleth). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have made a construction article from the composition suggested by Williams to produce useful articles for commercial applications as taught by Schleth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made a construction article comprising a fist surface and a second surface opposite the first surface from the composition suggested by Williams.
Regarding claim 23: Example 1-2 discloses a resin surface energy was increased from a first surface energy of 36 dyes to about 48-50 dynes after treatment and molded into an article. Over 6 months the surface energy remained in the 48-50 dyne level. ([0058]-[0059] Williams) and therefore persists within 20% of the second surface energy for at least one month.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schleth as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Cherian et al. (US 2020/0291214).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Williams and Schleth doesn’t mention a high molecular weight acrylic process aid.
Cherian is directed to a melt strength enhancer that can be added to increase the melt strength of a polymer. The melt strength enhancer is a high molecular weight acrylic process aid (abstract Cherian). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the high molecular weight acrylic process aid in the composition of Williams and Schleth to improve the melt strength and is processable under typical melt processing conditions (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included a high molecular weight acrylic process aid in the composition of Williams and Schleth to arrive at claim 35 of the present invention.
Claims 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schleth as applied to claim 1, 10 above, and further in view of Guha et al. (US 2013/0136929).
Regarding claim 17: Resins to be treated include PVC ([0036] Williams).
Regarding claim 20: A polymer based article of siding, lumber for decks, shingle (roof), moldings etc. are disclosed ([0036] Schleth).
Claims 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schleth as applied to claims 18, 21 above, and further in view of Sharygin et al. (US 2010/0003523).
Regarding claims 19, 22: The combination of Williams and Schleth doesn’t mention an application of a UV curable composition.
Sharygin is directed to a UV curable composition for the purpose of providing embossing, harness, and enhanced chemical, scratch, and abrasion resistance (abstract Sharygin). The thickness of the UV curable composition is 3-30 microns ([0049] Sharygin). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included a third surface on the article of Williams and Schleth to providing embossing, harness, and enhanced chemical, scratch, and abrasion resistance (abstract Sharygin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a third surface on the article of Williams and Schleth to arrive at claims 19, 22 of the present invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9 are allowed for the following reasons:
Williams does not suggest alone, or in combination, the claimed method of preparing an extruded polymer based construction material comprising treatment of the extruded polymer based construction material. Rather, Williams is solely directed to treatment of a particulate matter that is subsequently molded.
The Examiner is unaware of prior art that reasonably suggests alone, or in combination, the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 (herein Remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant argues (p. 3 Remarks) a terminal disclaimer has been filed renders the ODP rejections moot.
The terminal disclaimer filed 3/18/2025 has been reviewed and accepted.
Applicant argues (p. 11-19 Remarks) Williams does not teach a method of treating a surface of an extruded polymer based construction material. Williams describes treatment of a particulate resin and is silent regarding an extruded polymer based construction material. Schleth fails to cure the deficiency of Williams since the surface energy of the particulate resin does not translate to any property of the product. Rather, Schleth describes an organic material stabilized with the sterically hindered amine compounds against degredation products induced by light, heat or oxidation. Applicant cites 133 of Williams.
With regards to the claimed method, this argument is found persuasive since the powder is treated. Further Williams does not suggest treating a molded product. Rather Williams is specific to treatment of the powder, and subsequently made into a molded article.
With regards to the claimed product, it is clear an extruded polymeric based product is disclosed by Williams, and therefore the rejection of claims 10, 13-15, 17-23 are maintained. Further, while 133 of Williams describes a powder, the working examples disclose a molded article made from the powder.
Applicant argues (p. 20-21 Remarks) Williams describes the treatment of particular resin and silent regarding a construction based material of claim 18. While Williams describes treatment of particulate matter, there is no disclosure that such treatment extends to extruded construction material.
This argument is not found persuasive since it is not necessary for Williams to specifically disclose the surface energy extends to the article made. Nevertheless, Williams teaches the particulate is molded in a rotational molding process, and Example 2 indicates the particulate material maintained the surface anergy after 6 months. In other words, Example 2 of Williams, utilizing the particulate resin of Example 1, was molded into an article, wherein the surface energy of the article surface was increased from a first surface energy of 36 dyes to about 48-50 dynes after treatment and molded into an article. Over 6 months the surface energy remained in the 48-50 dyne level. ([0058]-[0059] Williams). There is nothing in Williams to suggest the surface energy would not be present in the molded article, and there is no reason to believe the surface energy would not be present. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764