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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 4-7, 12b-12d and 13b-13d: The lines of each figure are faint and difficult to distinguish.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 5-6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said central core region first extended planar surface” should be --said first extended planar surface-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7-8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said central core region second extended planar surface” should be --said second extended planar surface-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said first and second planar surfaces” should be --said first and second extended planar surfaces-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears a comma should be placed after “region”,
With regard to claim 7: Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said routed slot” should be --said slot-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “one or more edges” should be --said one or more edges-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said one or more spline” should be --said one or more splines-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 12 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said spline” should be --said one or more splines-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 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.
With regard to claim 6: Lines 3-4 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least one adjacent layer” is referencing the previously recited multiple layers recited of claims 3-4.
With regard to claim 7: The scope of the claim is unclear. The claimed method recites a method of using the panel of claim 1, but does not recite the use of said panel in the body of claim. However, the claim does recited a plurality of panels. It’s unclear if the plurality of panels if referencing the panel of claim 1. Lines 10-11 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “one routed slot of one panel” is referencing the previously recited slot and the plurality of panels. Lines 11-12 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a slot from a second panel” is referencing the previously recited slot and the plurality of panels.
Claims 6-7 are examined as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulthorpe (US 2023/0183967 A1) in view of Stonyer (US 2023/0294369 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Gouldthorpe discloses a construction panel (304 or 306) (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a central core region (core between skins 308, 312 and 310, 314) manufactured from PET plastic material (fig. 3; par. [0051]), said central core region (core between skins 308, 312 and 310, 314) including first and second extended planar surfaces (top and bottom surfaces abutting skins 308, 312 and 310, 314) (fig. 3);
a first skin (308 and 310) disposed against said first extended planar surface (top surface) (fig. 3); and
a second skin (312 or 314) disposed against said second extended planar surface (bottom surface) (fig. 3).
Gouldthorpe does not disclose that the PET plastic material is a recycled PET plastic material.
However, Stonyer discloses a panel having a core (110, 210) made of a PET plastic material that is a recycled PET plastic material, the core sandwiched between thermoplastic skins (120, 220) (figs. 1-2; par. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Gouldthorpe to have the PET plastic material be a recycled PET plastic material such as taught by Stonyer in order to provide a material that is environmentally friendly to produce and cost effective compared to virgin PET plastic material. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the PET plastic material to be a recycled PET plastic material. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2: Gouldthorpe discloses that said first and second skins (308, 312 and 310, 314) are adhered (via bonding) to said first and second planar surfaces of said central core region (core between skins 308, 312 and 310, 314), respectively (fig. 3; par. [0033]).
With regard to claim 3: Gouldthorpe discloses that the first skin (308 and 310) is comprised of multiple layers (sheets of fiber reinforced material) (par. [0032], [0048]and [0196]).
With regard to claim 4: Gouldthorpe discloses that the second skin (312 or 314) is comprised of multiple layers (sheets of fiber reinforced material) (par. [0032], [0048]and [0196]).
With regard to claim 5: Gouldthorpe discloses that the first skin (308 and 310) and the second skin (312 or 314) each include fiber reinforced PET plastic material where said fibers are oriented generally in a single direction (unidirectional fibers) (par. [0032], [0048]).
With regard to claim 7: The claimed method of constructing a structure including providing a plurality of panels as disclosed in claim 1 would have been an obvious method of construction in view of the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulthorpe in view of Stonyer.
Goulthorpe further discloses routing a slot (320 or 322) proximate one or more edges of said plurality of panels (304 and 306) (fig. 3; par. [0089]);
providing one or more splines (324) configured for engaging with said slot (cavities 320 or 322) in one or more edges of said plurality of panels (304 and 305) (fig. 3);
assembling two of said panels (304 and 305) together by inserting and adhering (via adhesive 328, 330) said one or more splines (324) in the slot (320) of one panel (306) of the plurality of panels (304 and 306) and inserting one of the slot (322) from a second panel (304) of the plurality of panels (304 and 305) over said one or more splines (324) (fig. 3); and
wherein said panels (304 and 306) are configured to serve as one or more of marine components (boats), walls, floors, ceilings and roofs of said structure (figs. 1A- 3; par. [0037]-[0038] and [0076]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goulthorpe (US 2023/0183967 A1) in view of Stonyer (US 2023/0294369 A1) and in further view of Lozier et al. (US 2020/0298537 A1).
With regard to claim 6: Goulthorpe discloses that the first skin and the second skin include fiber reinforced PET plastic material (par. [0048]).
Goulthorpe in view of Stonyer does not disclose that said fibers oriented 90 degrees with respect to adjacent layers of the multiple layers.
However, Lozier et al. discloses a panel comprising fiber reinforced PET sheets formed from multiple sheets, the fibers of one sheet oriented at 90 degrees with respect to another sheet (par. [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Goulthorpe previously by Stonyer to have the fibers of the adjacent layers of the skins be oriented at 90 degrees with respect to one another such as taught by Lozier et al. in order to provide desired strength and stiffness in multiple directions. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the orientation of fibers of the adjacent layers to be 90 degrees with respect to one another. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is directed to composite panels and/or splines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633