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.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 52 recites “the particulate substrate” in line 1. It appears that claim 52 should recite “the particulate material” to mirror the language of claim 49 from which claim 52 depends.
Claim 57 recites “the particulate substrate” in line 3. It appears that claim 57 should recite “the particulate material” to mirror the language of claim 49 from which claim 57 depends.
Claim 58 recites “depth in the range” in line 2. It appears that claim 58 should recite “depth in a range” in line 2.
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 49, 50, 53-56, 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertelli et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0262721, referred to hereinafter as Albertelli ‘721) in view of Xu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0016819).
Regarding claim 49, Albertelli ‘721 teaches a cured polymeric skin (page 1, paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018]) comprising a cured sheet form curable material (page 1, paragraphs [0017], [0018]) including a thermosetting material (page 1, paragraph [0018]), the thermosetting material including a cured phenolic resin (page 1, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 3, paragraph [0064]), and further comprising a particulate material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 6, paragraph [0128]), into which the sheet form material has flowed (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 4, paragraph [0082], page 6, paragraph [0128]), and is at least partially exposed in a surface of the sheet form material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 4, paragraph [0082], page 6, paragraph [0128]).
Albertelli ‘721 fails to teach wherein the sheet form curable material includes a filler and further wherein the filler comprises a transition metal hydroxide and/or aluminum hydroxide. However, Xu et al. teach a cured polymeric skin (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) comprising a thermosetting material including a cured phenolic resin (page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) and nanocomponents of mixed metal hydroxides (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 3, paragraph [0026]).
Xu et al. do not disclose wherein the filler is present in a ratio of filler to cured phenolic resin in an amount of 3:1 and greater and a ratio of metal hydroxide to cured phenolic resin in an amount of 2:1 to 3:1. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of mixed metal hydroxide and cured phenolic resin in Xu et al. in order to reduce the amount of shrinkage occurring in the composition to provide low or zero shrinkage compositions (Xu et al., page 4, paragraph [0039]).
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 mixed metal hydroxide of Xu et al. in the sheet form curable material of Albertelli ‘721 in order to reduce the amount of shrinkage occurring in the composition to provide low or zero shrinkage compositions (Xu et al., page 4, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 50, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the particulate material is at least substantially embedded in a surface of the sheet form material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 4, paragraph [0082], page 6, paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 53, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the cured sheet form curable material has a thickness of at least 1 mm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 0.3 to 50 mm (page 1, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 6, paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 54, Albertelli ‘721 fails to teach wherein the transition metal or aluminum hydroxides are of formula M(OH)3, wherein M is a metal. However, Xu et al. teach a cured polymeric skin (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) comprising a thermosetting material including a cured phenolic resin (page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) and nanocomponents of mixed metal hydroxides (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 3, paragraph [0026]).
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 mixed metal hydroxide of Xu et al. in the sheet form curable material of Albertelli ‘721 in order to reduce the amount of shrinkage occurring in the composition to provide low or zero shrinkage compositions (Xu et al., page 4, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 55, Albertelli ‘721 fails to teach wherein the filler is a particulate solid which is insoluble in the thermosetting material. However, Xu et al. teach a cured polymeric skin (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) comprising a thermosetting material including a cured phenolic resin (page 2, paragraph [0025], page 4, paragraph [0038]) and nanocomponents of mixed metal hydroxides (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 3, paragraph [0026]), wherein the nanocomponent is a particulate solid which is insoluble in the thermosetting material (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 3, paragraph [0026]).
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 mixed metal hydroxide of Xu et al. in the sheet form curable material of Albertelli ‘721 in order to reduce the amount of shrinkage occurring in the composition to provide low or zero shrinkage compositions (Xu et al., page 4, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 56, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the sheet form curable material further comprises fibers (page 4, paragraph [0065]).
Albertelli ‘721 does not disclose wherein the fibers are added to the uncured material in a ratio of resin to fiber of 6:1 to 1:3. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of resin to fiber in order to provide adequate reinforcement (Albertelli ‘721, page 4, paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 59, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the cured polymeric skin (page 1, paragraphs [0001], [0017], [0018]) has been molded by means of a mold (page 4, paragraph [0082], page 5, paragraph [0102])
Regarding claim 60, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the skin further comprises a pattern on a surface of the cured sheet form material (page 1, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 61, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the skin further comprises a veil on a second surface of the cured sheet form curable material (page 5, paragraphs [0090], [0091]).
Regarding claim 62, Albertelli ‘721 teaches wherein the skin further comprises a particulate material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 6, paragraph [0128]), into which the sheet form material has flowed (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 4, paragraph [0082], page 6, paragraph [0128]), and is at least partially exposed in a second surface of the sheet form material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 4, paragraph [0082], page 6, paragraph [0128]).
Claims 51, 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertelli et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0262721, referred to hereinafter as Albertelli ‘721) in view of Xu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0016819), in further view of Albertelli et al. (GB 2480253, referred to hereinafter as Albertelli ‘253).
Albertelli ‘721 and Xu et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 51, Albertelli ‘721 fails to teach wherein the particulate material comprises one or more particulate materials selected from sand, gypsum, graphite, calcium carbonate, hydrated organic slats, ceramic materials, clay materials, and metal oxides. However, Albertelli ‘253 teaches a composite product comprising a sheet form material including a thermosetting material (page 2, lines 25-30, page 5, lines 15-20) and a particulate material (page 2, lines 25-30, page 9, lines 14-34), wherein the particulate material comprises clay materials or metal oxides (page 9, lines 14-34).
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 particulate material of Albertelli ‘253 in the particulate material of Albertelli ‘721 in order to provide reinforcement (Albertelli ‘253, page 9, lines 20-34).
Regarding claims 57 and 58, Albertelli ‘721 fails to teach wherein the skin further comprises one or more masonry tiles, the masonry tiles being applied to the surface of the cured sheet form curable material prior to contacting with the particulate substrate. However, Albertelli ‘253 teaches a composite product comprising a sheet form material including a thermosetting material (page 2, lines 25-30, page 5, lines 15-20) and a particulate material (page 2, lines 25-30, page 9, lines 14-34), further comprising one or more masonry tiles (page 2, lines 25-32, page 4, lines 25-30) having a depth in the range of less than 30 mm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 3 to 30 mm (page 3, lines 19-25).
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 masonry tiles of Albertelli ‘253 on the cured sheet form curable material prior to contacting the particulate substrate of Albertelli ‘721 in order to provide a desirable aesthetic finish to the product and/or provide durability to the product (Albertelli ‘253, page 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertelli et al. (US Patent Application No. 2011/0262721, referred to hereinafter as Albertelli ‘721) in view of Xu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0016819), in further view of Twardowska-Baxter et al. (US Patent Application No. 2006/0252869).
Regarding claim 52, Albertelli ‘721 fail to teach wherein the particulate substrate comprise one or more materials susceptible to electromagnetic radiation. However, Twardowska-Baxter et al. teach a sheet molding capable of curing into structures (page 2, paragraph [0015]) comprising graphite (a material susceptible to electromagnetic radiation) (page 2, paragraph [0017]).
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 graphite of Twardowska-Baxter et al. in the particulate material of Albertelli ‘721 in order to maintain toughness (Twardowska-Baxter et al., page 2, paragraph [0017]).
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 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights