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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Feller fails does not teach or suggest an infiltrated three dimensional article having a second polymeric material derived from (meth)acryl components as recited in amended claim 1. This is not found persuasive because evidence of lack of unity between the groups is found in Pyles et al. (US Patent Application No. 2012/00038), wherein it is found to disclose the technical features in common between the groups. As such, the technical features in common of the claimed invention are not found to be special, since they do not define a contribution over the prior art. Pyles et al. teach a infiltrated molded plastic article (three dimensional article) (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 6, paragraph [0070]) comprising a first polymeric material having an exterior surface and an interior volume (page 1, paragraph [0011]) and a second polymeric material that is a reaction product of a polymerizable composition comprising at least one (meth)acryl component (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 2, paragraph [0015], page 5, paragraph [0059]). Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the first polymeric material comprises a reaction disposed in at least a portion of the interior volume of the first polymeric material to a depth of at least 0.1 millimeters (mm) from the exterior surface. However, Pyles et al. teach wherein the length of time in which the plastic article remains immersed in a bath and the process conditions depends upon the desired degree and depth of infusion of monomer into the surface layer (page 5, paragraph [0061]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in depth involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the depth of the reaction product in the interior volume of the first polymeric material of Pyles et al. because Pyles et al. teach that the desired degree and depth of infusion can be achieved depending on the length of time and process conditions (Pyles et al., page 5, paragraph [0061]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “The article of” and does not list a dependent claim. It appears that claim 6 should depend from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyles et al. (US Patent Application No. 2012/0077038).
Regarding claim 1, Pyles et al. teach a infiltrated molded plastic article (three dimensional article) (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 6, paragraph [0070]) comprising a first polymeric material having an exterior surface and an interior volume (page 1, paragraph [0011]) and a second polymeric material that is a reaction product of a polymerizable composition comprising at least one (meth)acryl component (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 2, paragraph [0015], page 5, paragraph [0059]).
Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the first polymeric material comprises a reaction disposed in at least a portion of the interior volume of the first polymeric material to a depth of at least 0.1 millimeters (mm) from the exterior surface. However, Pyles et al. teach wherein the length of time in which the plastic article remains immersed in a bath and the process conditions depends upon the desired degree and depth of infusion of monomer into the surface layer (page 5, paragraph [0061]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in depth involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the depth of the reaction product in the interior volume of the first polymeric material of Pyles et al. because Pyles et al. teach that the desired degree and depth of infusion can be achieved depending on the length of time and process conditions (Pyles et al., page 5, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Pyles et al. teach wherein the first polymeric material is immersed in a solution of the second polymeric material (the second polymeric material is disposed on at least a portion of the exterior surface of the first polymeric material) (page 4, paragraph [0053], page 5, paragraph [0061]).
Pyles et al. do not teach wherein the layer has a thickness of 500 micrometers or greater. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the layer of Pyles et al. in order to enhance the surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Pyles et al. teach wherein the first polymeric material is immersed in a solution of the second polymeric material (the second polymeric material is disposed on the exterior surface of the first polymeric material) (page 4, paragraph [0053], page 5, paragraph [0061]).
Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the second polymeric material is disposed on an entirety of the exterior surface of the first polymeric material in a form of a complete shell surrounding the first polymeric material. However, Pyles et al. teach wherein the first polymeric material is immersed in a solution of the second polymeric material (the second polymeric material is disposed on the exterior surface of the first polymeric material) (page 4, paragraph [0053], page 5, paragraph [0061]). One would have been motivated to modify the amount of second polymeric material on the first polymeric material in order to enhance the surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Pyles et al. teach wherein the second polymeric material is disposed in a portion of the interior volume of the first polymeric material located directly adjacent to at least a portion of the exterior surface of the first polymeric material (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 5, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 8, Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the second polymeric material is disposed throughout the interior volume of the fist polymeric material. However, Pyles et al. do teach wherein the second polymeric material is disposed to a desired degree and depth within the interior volume of the first polymeric material (page 5, paragraph [0061]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in dispersion involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to dispose the second polymeric material of Pyles et al. throughout the interior volume of the first polymeric material because Pyles et al. teach that one of ordinary skill in the art can select the desired degree and depth of infusion (page 5, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the second polymeric material has a modulus that is at least 10% different than a modulus of the first polymeric material. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in modulus involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the modulus of the first polymeric material and second polymeric material in order to enhance surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the second polymeric material has a glass transition temperature (Tg) that is at least 5 degrees Celsius different than a Tg of the first polymeric material. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in glass transition temperature involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the glass transition temperature of the first polymeric material and second polymeric material in order to enhance surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Pyles et al. teach wherein the second polymeric material and the first polymeric material form an interpenetrating polymer network (page 1, paragraph [0011], page 2, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Pyles et al. do not teach wherein the second polymeric material has different optical properties than the first polymeric material. However, Pyles et al. teach wherein care must be taken to not adversely affect the surface properties of transparent articles used in optical applications (page 5, paragraph [0061]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in glass transition temperature involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the optical properties of the first polymeric material and second polymeric material in order to enhance surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Pyles et al. do not disclose wherein the second polymeric material has at least one of a different color, a different refractive index, or a different transparency, than the first polymeric material. However, Pyles et al. teach wherein care must be taken to not adversely affect the surface properties of transparent articles used in optical applications (page 5, paragraph [0061]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in color, refractive index or transparency involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the color, refractive index or transparency of the first polymeric material and second polymeric material in order to enhance surface modification of the physical and chemical properties of the host polymer (Pyles et al., page 1, paragraph [0011]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyles et al. (US Patent Application No. 2012/0077038) in view of Feller et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0283315).
Pyles et al. et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 4, Pyles et al. fail to teach wherein the first polymeric material comprises a reaction product of a photopolymerization composition comprising at least one ethylenically unsaturated component and at least one photoinitiator. However, Feller et al. teach an infiltrated three dimensional article (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising a first polymeric material having an exterior surface and an interior volume (page 1, paragraph [0007]) and a second polymeric material disposed in at least a portion of the interior volume of the first polymeric material (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 2, paragraph [0022]), wherein the first polymeric material comprises a reaction product of a photopolymerizable composition comprising at least one ethylenically unsaturated component and at least one photoinitiator (page 1, paragraph [0007], page 2, paragraph [0021], page 4, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reaction product of Feller et al. in the article of Pyles et al. in order to provide satisfactory structural properties (Feller et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyles et al. (US Patent Application No. 2012/0077038) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US Patent No. 6,964,999).
Pyles et al. et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Pyles et al. fail to teach wherein the second polymeric material is a pressure sensitive adhesive. However, Nakagawa et al. teach an article (col. 26, lines 63-65) comprising a polymeric material that is a reaction product of a polymerizable composition comprising at least one (meth)acryl component (col. 4, lines 5-60), wherein the polymeric material is a pressure sensitive adhesive (col. 26, lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure sensitive adhesive of Nakagawa et al. in the article of Pyles et al. in order to improve adhesion (Nakagawa et al., col. 26, lines 45-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/19/2026