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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I , claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 07/31/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira (JP2004-345090) and further in view of Koguchi et al. (JPH1076561).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Akira discloses a functional wood comprising a substrate and a coating/film on a surface thereof (0007).The coating comprising a polymeric binder and photocatalytic particles (0007 and 0009).
While Akira teaches that the wood can include laminates of joined crushed wood, Akira does not expressly teach the substrate comprising a first polymer resin and a filler. Akira further does not teach a surface of the coating including a wood pattern formed by an uneven structure including protrusions.
Koguchi, in the analogous field of synthetic wood (0004), teaches a base material and an anti-slip layer (0010). Where, the base layer includes a synthetic resin and wood powder and filler (0010 and 0012) and the anti-slip layer comprises a pattern including protrusions having an appearance similar to wood (0021, Fig. 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the wood substrate of Akira to comprise resin and filler and for the surface coating to comprise a wood pattern, as taught by Koguchi, providing a synthetic wood with excellent weather resistance, abrasion resistance, and surface slip resistance (0004).
Akira further teaches that the concentration of photocatalyst is higher at the outer surface than the surface in contact with the wood or film and that the change may be gradual or discontinuous (0024) to prevent deterioration of the interface with the substrate surface due to photocatalytic action and high photocatalytic activity (0067).
In the combination of Akira in view of Koguchi, it would have been obvious to have optimized the content of photocatalytic particles including in the protrusions to be in a range from 5 to 30% as claimed (in claim 1) and 0.1 to 5 wt% in the skin portion (as claimed in claim 5) since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 2-4, Koguchi does not expressly disclose the amount of synthetic resin however teaches amounts for the wood powder (20-30 parts by weight), foaming agents and filler/pigment added to the composition (0011-0012). Consequently, it would not be inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation of the amount of synthetic resin. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Akira teaches that the concentration of photocatalyst is higher at the outer surface than the surface in contact with the wood or film and that the change may be gradual or discontinuous (0024) to prevent deterioration of the interface with the substrate surface due to photocatalytic action and high photocatalytic activity (0067).
In the combination of Akira in view of Koguchi, it would have been obvious to have optimized the content of photocatalytic particles including for a ratio (B/A) of a content (B) of photocatalytic particles in the protrusion to a content (A) of photocatalytic particles in portion excluding the protrusions to range from 2 to 20 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Akira teaches the binder including polyvinyl chloride (0074) and Koguchi teaches the synthetic resin including poly vinyl chloride (0010).
Regarding claim 8, Akira teaches the photocatalyst particles including titanium dioxide (0028).
Regarding claim 9, Akira teaches the particles have an anatase phase (0028).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
