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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 8 reciting “300 m” appears to have a typographical error and should be “300 m”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-18 are objected to due to their dependence of claim 1.
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 1-18 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 line 11 reciting “resin” is indefinite because it is not clear if the resin is the same or different from the recited “resin obtained from the recovered material” in line 3 and line 15.
If the “resin” in lines 3, 11 and 15 are the same, then what is the difference between the claimed “fillers” in line 2 and “resin” in line 3 since both are “obtained from recovered material”?
If the “resin” in lines 3, 11 and 15 are different, then what is the difference?
Examiner will treat the recitation in lines 10-11 as “recovered material obtained from the grinding of sinks comprising quartz and/or feldspar…”.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 1 line 15 reciting “acrylic syrup” is indefinite because it is not clear what “acrylic syrup” is.
Examiner will treat as being taught by the recitation in line 15 as “the resin comprises an acrylic composition obtained from recovered material… “.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 7 line 7 reciting “acrylic syrup” is indefinite because it is not clear what “acrylic syrup” is.
Examiner will treat as being taught by the recitation in line 7 as “an acrylic composition comprising meta-methyl methacrylate (MMA)… “.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 7 line 6 recites the limitation “recovered glass fibers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are no recited “recovered glass fibers” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “wherein said” with “also comprising”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 line 7 recites the limitation “recovered glass fibers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there are no recited “recovered glass fibers” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “wherein said” with “also comprising”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 lines 8-9 recite the limitations “MMA” and “PMMA”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because there are no recited “MMA” and “PMMA” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “wherein said” with “also comprising”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 14 lines 6-7 recite the limitations “MMA” and “PMMA”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because there are no recited “MMA” and “PMMA” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “wherein said” with “also comprising”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 16 line 4 recite the limitation “mineral filler”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “mineral” in the claim because there are no recited “mineral” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) delete “mineral”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 16 lines 6-7 recite the limitations “MMA” and “PMMA”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because there are no recited “MMA” and “PMMA” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) replace “wherein said” with “also comprising”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 17 line 4 recite the limitation “mineral filler”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “mineral” in the claim because there are no recited “mineral” in claim 1.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) delete “mineral”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugiolacchio et al. (US 2018/0127563 A1) (“Bugiolacchio” hereinafter) in view of Bremner et al. (US 2017/0144922 A1) (“Bremner” hereinafter).
Alternatively, claims 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk et al. (US 2021/0087383 A1) (“Datsyuk” hereinafter) and Bremner.
Regarding claim 1, Bugiolacchio teaching a composition for kitchen or bathroom furnishings (see Bugiolacchio at [0001] teaching self-cleaning composite material for producing molded kitchen and bathroom interior decoration items, see Bugiolacchio at [0013] teaching composite material), comprising:
fillers obtained from recovered material, wherein the recovered fillers comprise… one…of the following materials… recovered aluminum trihydrate (ATH) having a particle size less than 100 m (the recitations “obtained from recovered material” or “fillers obtained from recovered material” are being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Bugiolacchio (see MPEP 2113.I). Alternatively, see Bugiolacchio at [0014] teaching alumina trihydrate (ATH) base with size comprised between 10 and 50 microns, see Bugiolacchio at [0087]-[0088] teaching aluminas (alumina trihydrate ATH…) of either… recovered type… recovery can be of both internal and external type… it is of internal type by re-using ground sinks… or of external type by using mineral charges recovered from other industries) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
resin… the resin comprises an… polyester (see Bugiolacchio at [0015] teaching polyester resin),
the virgin additives comprise at least one cross-linking agent (see Bugiolacchio at [0018] teaching cross-linking monomers to obtain the reticulation of the polyester resin or mixture),
that favors the cross-linking of the resin (this recitation is being treated as being taught by Bugiolacchio because the cross-linking agent as taught by Bugiolacchio is expected to be capable of the claimed “favors the cross-linking of the resin”), and
one compatibilizing substance (see Bugiolacchio at [0017] teaching compatibilizing agent),
that favors the adhesion of the resin to the fillers (this recitation is being treated as being taught by Bugiolacchio because the cross-linking agent as taught by Bugiolacchio is expected to be capable of the claimed “that favors the adhesion of the resin to the fillers”).
Bugiolacchio does not explicitly teach that the claimed i) “resin” is “obtained from recovered material” or “polyester obtained from recovered material” and ii) “wherein said composition comprises more than 91% in weight percentage of recovered material”.
With respect to i), the limitation “resin” is “obtained from recovered material” or “polyester obtained from recovered material” (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Bugiolacchio (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is a polyester resin, see Bugiolacchio at [0015] teaching polyester resin).
Alternatively, like Bugiolacchio, Datsyuk teaches a composite material for kitchen decoration items comprising polyester (see Datsyuk at [0002] teaching a heat-curable bio-based casting composition suitable for producing a molding consisting of a polymer matrix formed from the polymerized casting composition with filler particles embedded therein… a molding produced from such a casting composition, for example in the form such a casting composition, for example in the form of… a kitchen sink… wherein the polymerized casting composition forms a biocomposite material consisting of a polymer matrix with embedded filler particles).
Datsyuk further teaches a heat-curable bio-based casting composition comprising… one… polymers or copolymers selected from among… polyesters derived from… recycled material (see Datsyuk at [0006])… the production of the bio-composites composed of the filler particles and the crosslinking materials, which are produced from renewable sources, reduces the consumption of petrochemically produced materials and thus the consumption of petroleum and has a positive effect on the environment (see Datsyuk at [0008]). Polyester derived from recycled material is taken to meet the claimed i) “resin” is “obtained from recovered material” or “polyester obtained from recovered material”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Datsyuk teaches that casting composition comprising polyester derived from recycled material reduces the consumption of petrochemically produced materials and the consumption of petroleum, and has a positive effect on the environment, and seek those advantages by using polyester derived from recycled material in the composite material as taught by Bugiolacchio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyester derived from recycled material as taught by Datsyuk in the composite material as taught by Bugiolacchio because polyester derived from recycled material reduces the consumption of petrochemically produced materials and the consumption of petroleum, and has a positive effect on the environment.
With respect to ii), like Bugiolacchio, Bremner teaches a composite material for kitchen decoration items comprising recovery type minerals (see Bremner at [0259] teaching a shaped item comprising the composite material, see Bremner at [0261] teaching the shaped item is selected from the group including a composite sheet, interior and exterior tiles, exterior sheet cladding, decorative facing brick, surface tops (e.g. kitchen work-surfaces), building units (e.g. bricks), see Bremner at [0143]-[0144] teaching the composite material suitably comprises waste materials, suitably at least 75 wt% waste materials… non-glass mineral waste may include waste tableware, sanitary ware (e.g. bathroom items), quarry waste, processed waste from coal-fired power stations, brick rubble… waste materials may be household or industrial waste materials).
Bremner further teaches the composite material comprises at least 97 wt% waste materials (see Bremner at [0147]), which is taken to meet the claimed ii) “wherein said composition comprises more than 91% in weight percentage of recovered material” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Bremner also teaches there exists a widespread demand for decorative building materials and surfaces such as interior or exterior tiling, cladding, facing brick, and surface tops… to provide aesthetically pleasing internal and external environments… however, a rising awareness of the finite supply of mineral resources and the ever increasing quantities of landfill waste, has led to the innovation of new, more sustainable composite materials which incorporate household and industrial waste materials… moreover, since raw materials are typically transported over long distances in order to produce the relevant decorative building materials, there is a need to address the cost and energy burden this imposes (see Bremner at [0003])… another object of the disclosure is to provide a composite material with a higher waste/recyclate content than those of the prior art, whilst still maintaining the structural integrity and aesthetic qualities of the composite material (see Bremner at [0010]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Bremner teaches that a composite material comprising at least 97 wt% waste materials addresses the cost and energy burden of decorative building materials and surfaces because there is a need for a composite material with a higher waste/recyclate content than those of the prior art, whilst still maintaining the structural integrity and aesthetic qualities of the composite material, and seek those advantages by incorporating at least 97 wt% waste materials in the composite material as taught by Bugiolacchio.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate at least 97 wt% waste materials as taught by Bremner in the composite material as taught by Bugiolacchio so as to address the cost and energy burden of decorative building materials and surfaces because there is a need for a composite material with a higher waste/recyclate content than those of the prior art, whilst still maintaining the structural integrity and aesthetic qualities of the composite material.
Regarding claim 2, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio further teaches the claimed “also comprising recovered glass in a weight percentage comprised between 4% and 20% relative to the total weight of the composition” (see Bugiolacchio at [0029] and [0031] teaching mineral charges of siliceous type (SiO2) with size lower than 0.1 mm can be added to the composition in a quantity comprised between 2% and 15% with respect to the composition… for example… glass microspheres can be used amongst mineral charges of siliceous type (SiO2)… the recovered mineral charges can be added… the recovery mineral charges derives from charges from… recovery glass) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
With respect to the claimed “fiber” for the claimed “recovered glass”, MPEP states that “the court held that the configuration… was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed… was significant” (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B). In this instance, the glass microspheres as taught by Bugiolacchio is taken to meet the claimed “glass fiber” because absent persuasive evidence, the claimed “fiber” is not significant.
Regarding claim 3, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Bugiolacchio does not explicitly teach the claimed “also comprising pigments in a weight percentage comprised between 0.1% and 4% relative to the total weight of the composition”.
However, Bremner teaches in a particular embodiment, the composite material comprises… 0-5 wt % colourant (e.g. colouring oxide) (see Bremner at [0156] and [0160]). 0-5 wt % colourant is taken to meet the claimed “0-5 wt % colourant” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a colourant is suitable for its intended use in a composite material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add 0-5 wt % colourant as taught by Bremner in the composite material as taught by Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner because a colourant is suitable for its intended use in a composite material.
Regarding claim 4, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Bugiolacchio does not explicitly the claimed “also comprising a bio-additive obtained from substances of plant or animal origin, comprising a bio-comonomer for increasing the glass transition temperature of the composition, in a weight percentage comprised between 0.5% and 5% relative to the total weight of the composition”.
However, Datsyuk teaches one or more polymers or copolymers selected from among… polyesters derived from… vegetable or animal origin… the proportion of the polymer(s) or copolymer(s) is 1-16% by weight (see Datsyuk at [0006]), which meets the claimed “a bio-additive obtained from substances of plant or animal origin, comprising a bio-comonomer for increasing the glass transition temperature of the composition, in a weight percentage comprised between 0.5% and 5% relative to the total weight of the composition” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio further teaches wherein said compatibilizing substance is silane (see Bugiolacchio at [0017] teaching compatibilizing agent, such as silane),
in a weight percentage comprised between 0.08% and 2% relative to the total weight of the composition (see Bugiolacchio at [0109]-[0116] teaching 420.00 grams of polyester… 6 grams of silane… 3 grams of TiO2… 559.2 grams of ATH… 4.00… grams of cross-linking agents… 1.5 g of zinc stearate). The total amount of the components for the composite as taught by Bugiolacchio is 993.7 g (or 420 + 6 + 3 + 559.2 + 4 + 1.5), and there are 0.6% (or (6 ÷ 993.7) x 100) silane in weight percent relative to the total weight of the composition, which is within the claimed “in a weight percentage comprised between 0.08% and 2% relative to the total weight of the composition”.
Regarding claim 6, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach wherein said fillers comprise recovered glass microspheres comprising a first type of glass microspheres having a particle size of less than 50 µm and a second type of microspheres having a particle size of less than 300 µm (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 7, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in a weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… recovered glass microspheres in a weight percentage comprised between 63% and 73%, recovered glass fibers in a weight percentage comprised between 4% and 20% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)),
an acrylic comprising meta-methyl methacrylate (MMA) obtained from recovered material and poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA) obtained from recovered material, wherein the MMA is in a weight percentage comprised between 15% and 25% and the PMMA is in a weight percentage comprised between 0% and 5% relative to the total weight of the composition (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed resin is met by polyester (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 8, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach wherein said fillers comprise recovered quartz comprising a first type of quartz having a particle size of 0.1 - 0.3 mm and a second type of quartz having a particle size of 0.3 - 0.7 mm (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claims 9-10, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach wherein said fillers comprise recovered quartz with epoxy resin coating in a weight percentage comprised between 0.5% and 3% relative to the total weight of the recovered quartz (claim 9), and wherein said recovered quartz with epoxy resin coating is colored with color pigments in a weight percentage comprised between 0.3% and 1% relative to the total weight of the recovered quartz (claim 10) (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 11, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… recovered quartz in a weight percentage comprised between 40% and 70%, recovered glass microspheres in a weight percentage comprised between 10% and 70%, recovered glass fibers in a weight percentage comprised between 4% and 20% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)),
MMA in a weight percentage comprised between 15% and 25%, and PMMA in a weight percentage comprised between 1% and 5% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed resin is met by polyester (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claims 12-13, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach wherein said fillers comprise recovered material from sinks with epoxy resin coating in a weight percentage comprised between 0.5% and 3% relative to the total weight of the recovered material from sinks (claim 12), and wherein said recovered material from sinks with epoxy resin coating is colored with color pigments in a weight percentage comprised between 0.3% and 1% relative to the total weight of the recovered material from sinks (claim 13) (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 14, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… recovered material from sinks in a weight percentage comprised between 35% and 45% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)),
recovered MMA in a weight percentage comprised between 49% and 53%; and recovered PMMA in a weight percentage comprised between 4% and 8% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed resin is met by polyester (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 18, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… recovered quartz in a weight percentage comprised between 57% and 67% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)), and
recovered polyester in a weight percentage comprised between 30% and 40% (see Bugiolacchio at [0015] teaching 10-30% of polyester resin) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15, 16 and 17.
Specifically, with respect to claim 15, it is noted that Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… recovered material from sinks in a weight percentage comprised between 35% and 45% (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed filler is met by ATH (see MPEP 2111.04.II)), and
10-30% of polyester resin (see Bugiolacchio at [0015]).
However, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner do not explicitly teach the claimed “polyester in a weight percentage comprised between 48% and 58%” as claimed in claim 15. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner as claimed.
Specifically, with respect to claim 16, it is noted that Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… filler consisting in recovered ATH (see 112 rejection, see Bugiolacchio at [0014] teaching 50-85% in weight of mineral charges with alumina trihydrate (ATH) base with size comprised between 10 and 50 micron, see Bugiolacchio at [0087]-[0088] teaching aluminas (alumina trihydrate ATH…) of either… recovered type… recovery can be of both internal and external type… it is of internal type by re-using ground sinks… or of external type by using mineral charges recovered from other industries),
recovered MMA in a weight percentage comprised between 45% and 55%, and recovered PMMA in a weight percentage comprised between 4% and 8% (see 112 rejection and claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed resin is met by polyester (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
However, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner do not explicitly teach that the claimed “filler consisting in recovered ATH” is “in weight percentage comprised between 32% and 42%” as claimed in claim 16. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner as claimed.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, it is noted that Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner further teach comprising the following materials in weight percentage relative to the total weight of the composition… filler consisting in recovered ATH (see 112 rejection, see Bugiolacchio at [0014] teaching 50-85% in weight of mineral charges with alumina trihydrate (ATH) base with size comprised between 10 and 50 micron, see Bugiolacchio at [0087]-[0088] teaching aluminas (alumina trihydrate ATH…) of either… recovered type… recovery can be of both internal and external type… it is of internal type by re-using ground sinks… or of external type by using mineral charges recovered from other industries), and
10-30% of polyester resin (see Bugiolacchio at [0015]).
However, Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner do not explicitly teach that the claimed “filler consisting in recovered ATH” is “in weight percentage comprised between 35% and 45%”, and the claimed “polyester in a weight percentage comprised between 48% and 58%” as claimed in claim 17.
And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Bugiolacchio in view of Bremner and/or Bugiolacchio in view of Datsyuk and Bremner as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15, 16 and 17 as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15, 16 and 17 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights