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 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.
Claim(s) 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan (US Pat. No.: 6,179,942 B1) and further in view of Lewit (US Pub. No.: 2014/0199551 A1) (hereinafter Lewit).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Padmanabhan discloses a method of bonding a fiber-reinforced plastic to a wood layer to form a composite structure, the method comprising: applying resin to a wood board and contacting a fiber reinforced plastic and laminating resin; curing the laminating resin to form a fiber-reinforced plastic, wherein the fiber-reinforced plastic is bonded to the wood layer by resin (Col 5, Ln 3-21). Padmanabhan is silent about co-cure adhesive layer comprises at least one elastomer and at least one resin selected from vinyl ester resin, a polyester resin, and an epoxy resin.
However, Lewit teaches a co-cure adhesive comprising at least one elastomer and at least one resin selected from a vinyl ester resin, a polyester resin, and an epoxy resin (¶0015, ¶0016). The benefit of doing so would have been to improve adhesion and reduce tendency to delaminate and provide flexibility and toughness (¶0014, ¶0016).
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize co-cured adhesive as taught by Lewit within the method of manufacturing composite structure as taught by Padmanabhan. The benefit of doing so would have been to improve adhesion and reduce tendency to delaminate and provide flexibility and toughness.
Regarding claim 18, Padmanabhan discloses hotmelt adhesive have been determined to be the best choice to bond prefabricated FRP to wood members to manufacture composite wood boards (Paragraph connecting col 5 and 6). Thus, the use of hotmelt adhesive naturally involves partially cured prior to application of reinforced layer (Col 6, Ln 9-24).
Regarding claim 19, Padmanabhan discloses curing the resin between wood and FRP and resin within FRP simultaneously (Col 5, Ln 3-21).
Regarding claim 21, Padmanabhan discloses forming engagement features into the wood layer prior to applying step (Fig. 4b, RC 24)
Regarding claim 22, Padmanabhan discloses engagement features comprise at least one of grooves (Fig. 4b, RC 24).
Regarding claim 23, Padmanabhan discloses filling the engagement features with glue (Col 9, Ln 39-56).
Regarding claim 24, Padmanabhan discloses the cure resin in combination with FRP form a seal on the wood member to prevent passage of water (paragraph connecting Col 2 and 3). Thus, a person of ordinary skill can readily form additional layer of adhesive layer to form watertight seal to assure water is sealed off.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746