DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In reference to claim 1-3, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kia (US 20040023050 A1)
In reference to claim 1-3, 14-16, Kia discloses a structural layer (“preparing a multilayer composite article” [Claim 1] See also claim 18) comprising a reinforced thermoset, the thermoset comprising cellular or microcellular urethane and vinyl ester, epoxy, or unsaturated polyester components, (“applying a gel coat composition into a mold” [Claim 1]; “Urethane acrylate gel coat resin… 38-50 [wt. %] [Example 4, P0126]; “pigment paste contains a pigment in an unsaturated polyester carrier resin” [Example 4, P0129]), wherein
(a) the urethane component is from 10 to 95 wt.% based on the amount of thermoset (“Urethane acrylate gel coat resin… 38-50 [wt. %] [Example 4, P0126]); and
(b) the structural layer is a composite material comprising:
(i) a co-cured resin comprising the urethane and vinyl ester, epoxy, or unsaturated polyester components; and (ii) a reinforcing material; (“short reinforcing fibers are added to the barrier composition to increase the strength and modulus” [P0091]. See also claim 18.)
wherein a combination of (i) the co-cured resin and (ii) the reinforcing material defines the reinforced thermoset; and wherein the co-cured resin, when measured on an unreinforced casting of the co-cured resin, exhibits an elongation of 1 % to 38%, a modulus of 1.1 to 710 kpsi, and a tensile strength of 400 to 6500 psi (“the flexural modulus is about 1900 MPa and the tensile modulus is about 1896 MPa” [P0091]
The prior art teaches the same structure and would have the same properties.).
Kia further discloses that fillers such as microbubbles or microspheres may be added such that "microspheres are used to reduce the density of the layer in which they found by displacing some of the resin with air that is encapsulated in the thin wall spheres" (P0098).
In other words, Kia forms the material into a foam by addition of preformed bubbles.
Since the claim is directed to a product, this difference in process is not considered to distinguish the claim because both the Kia product and the claimed product would result in a cellular/foamed material as claimed (see MPEP 2113). The claim is rejected under 35 USC 103 because the rejection combines teaching from Kia's specification with Kia's example 4. These are obviously combinable embodiments of Kia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights