DETAILED ACTION
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 5 and 6 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.
As to claim 5, the claim refers to the assembly of an ejection frame (“wherein assembly an ejection frame comprises:”) but depends on claim 1 when it should have depended on claim 4 which introduces the assembling an ejection frame. Claim 5 therefore lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6 is rejected by dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tagawa (JP2007-1170).
As to claim 1, Tagawa teaches a method of making a lavatory (Fig. 3) comprising mixing vitreous cull (glass powder), particulate matter (silica, aluminum hydroxide, calcium carbonate), and resin (epoxy) to form a composition (See claims). Tagawa teaches removing air bubbles from the composition (“vacuum defoaming treatment”), pouring the composition into a mold (“poured into the mold 1”) and curing the composition in the mold (“curing the resin composition”) to form the lavatory. The glass powder is interpreted to meet the claimed vitreous cull even regardless of whether it has been recycled. Additionally, any powdered glass is interpreted to inherently be recycled from its molten and solidified form.
Tagawa teaches a filler comprised of a mixture of two or more kinds of particles (claims). Any mixture of glass powder with any of the other fillers anticipates claim 1. Even if it is ultimately determined that the claim limitation is not anticipated by the disclosure of a combination, one would have found it obvious to select glass powder and another filler in light of Tagawa’s teaching of two or more kinds of particles.
As to claims 3, 7, 10, and 11, the Tagawa glass powder is inherently fragmented to a size of less than one inch (Tagawa teaches 1-100 microns). The particular origin of the recycled vitreous cull is interpreted to be outside the scope of the claim, and the Tagawa glass powder would have the same structure as unfired trimmings from a manufacturing process.
As to claims 8 and 9, the Tagawa mold is inherently sealed (see Figs. 1 and 2) prior to pouring in the epoxy resin composition (See claims).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa (JP2007-1170) in view of Grasso (US 20090286902). Tagawa teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 2, Tagawa is silent to the claimed ratio of components.
Grasso teaches that a recycled glass powder material (a vitreous cull) may be combined with a crushed stone filler (a particulate matter) and resin and formed into an article that can be used as a countertop. Grasso teaches that the resin may be 5-35 wt.% of the material (see claim 5), which overlaps with the claimed range. Grasso teaches that the filler and glass powder can collectively comprise 85-95 wt.% of the material (see claim 8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the ratio of the glass powder and stone filler to be a result effective variable which varies the appearance of the resulting countertop. Therefore, one would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed at least 45 wt.% glass powder and at least 20 wt.% particulate matter as a matter of routine experimentation in optimizing the appearance of the article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Grasso ratios into Tagawa because one would have been motivated to use these ratios to change or improve the appearance of the Tagawa article. Tagawa teaches a lavatory as shown in Fig. 3 and Grasso teaches a similar countertop article with its appearance being the result of the composition mix used to form the article. In light of the similar ingredients and resulting article, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in using the Grasso ratios in Tagawa.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa (JP2007-1170) in view of Wennberg (WO 2004035286). Tagawa teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4, Tagawa is silent to the assembling of an ejection frame.
Wennberg teaches an ejection frame for removing a part from a mold (Figs. 1-3) which has been inherently assembled.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Wennberg device into Tagawa because Tagawa teaches molding a part in a mold and Wennberg teaches/suggests a device specifically for removing a molded part from a mold. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar shape of the Tagawa lavatory and the Wennberg article (3).
Claims 12, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa (JP2007-1170) in view of Witte (US 20170174860).
As to claim 12, Tagawa teaches a method of making a lavatory (Fig. 3) comprising mixing vitreous cull (glass powder), particulate matter (silica, aluminum hydroxide, calcium carbonate), and resin (epoxy) to form a composition (See claims). Tagawa teaches the filler comprised of a mixture of two or more kinds of particles (claims). Tagawa teaches pouring the composition into a mold (“poured into the mold 1”) and curing the composition in the mold (“curing the resin composition”) to form the lavatory. The Tagawa glass powder is interpreted to meet the claimed vitreous cull even regardless of whether it has been recycled. Additionally, any powdered glass is interpreted to inherently be recycled from its molten and solidified form.
Tagawa is silent to fiberglass resin composite cull.
Witte teaches a process for recycling fiberglass resin composite prepreg, which is interpreted to meet the claimed cull. Witte teaches mixing the comminuted fiberglass resin composite prepreg with other materials including a second identical resin and optional additional filler and processing the mixture to produce molded workpieces (claim 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Witte comminuted fiberglass resin composite cull into Tagawa because Witte specifically teaches/suggests this material for use in a molding compound with additional resin and filler, and this is what Tagawa provides. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similarity of the two molding compositions.
As to claims 14, 15, 18, and 20, the Tagawa glass powder is inherently fragmented to a size of less than one inch (Tagawa teaches 1-100 microns). Similarly, Witte teaches comminuting the fiberglass resin composite to a size that may be less than one inch ([0014], middle). The particular origin of the recycled vitreous cull is interpreted to be outside the scope of the claim, and the Tagawa glass powder would have the same structure as trimmings from a manufacturing process or a plumbing fixture.
As to claim 19, the Tagawa mold is inherently sealed (see Figs. 1 and 2) prior to pouring in the epoxy resin composition (See claims).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa (JP2007-1170) in view of Witte (US 20170174860), and further in view of Grasso (US 20090286902). Tagawa and Witte teach the subject matter of claim 12 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 13, Tagawa is silent to the claimed ratio of components.
Grasso teaches that a recycled glass powder material (a vitreous cull) may be combined with a crushed stone filler (a particulate matter) and resin and formed into an article that can be used as a countertop. Grasso teaches that the resin may be 5-35 wt.% of the material (see claim 5), which overlaps with the claimed range. Grasso teaches that the filler and glass powder can collectively comprise 85-95 wt.% of the material (see claim 8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the ratio of the glass powder and stone filler to be a result effective variable which varies the appearance of the resulting countertop. Therefore, one would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed at least 45 wt.% glass powder and at least 20 wt.% particulate matter as a matter of routine experimentation in optimizing the appearance of the article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Grasso ratios into Tagawa because one would have been motivated to use these ratios to change or improve the appearance of the Tagawa article. Tagawa teaches a lavatory as shown in Fig. 3 and Grasso teaches a similar countertop article with its appearance being the result of the composition mix used to form the article. In light of the similar ingredients and resulting article, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in using the Grasso ratios in Tagawa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable 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.
Claims 16 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments on pages 6-8 are on the grounds that glass powder is not “recycled vitreous cull”, and that this term refers specifically to crushed ceramic derived from fired plumbing fixtures, and that standard glass powder and fired vitreous ceramic cull behave differently. First, the claim term “recycled vitreous cull” is not clearly defined in the manner suggested by Applicant’s arguments as to require that the material be from fired plumbing fixtures, and is noted that the instant specification states that “portions of the vitreous cull have may have not been fired.” Also, the Examiner takes the position that the Tagawa material meets the claimed recycled vitreous cull because of its chemical composition regardless of whether it was first recycled. Without a step of crushing or recycling some plumbing fixture to arrive at vitreous cull and a subsequent step of including that vitreous cull, the claimed material limitation is met by composition alone, rather than its status as recycled or non-recycled. There is no evidence that recycled vitreous cull behaves differently than the Tagawa powder, and it is noted that any distinction in the resulting article is not recited in the claims.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the rejection over Tagawa and Grasso is based on hindsight and the assertion that one would arrive at the claimed ratios through routine experimentation is conclusory and does not establish a proper motivation. It is noted that Applicant does not actually state in what ratio Grasso uses filler and glass powder, but seems to take the position that it would not be the one claimed. The Examiner disagrees and believes that Grasso’s process and selection of the ingredient amounts shows the claimed relative amounts to be an obvious result effective variable for varying the appearance of the resulting countertop as stated in the rejection, and that it is not conclusory to take the position that one would select an appropriate amount of the ingredients.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success in combining the Wennberg ejection frame with the Tagawa molding process since Tagawa forms a brittle composite article. The Wennberg ejection frame does remove a part from a mold, and the Examiner maintains that this meets what is claimed. The alleged brittleness is not a claimed feature, and it is noted that the more specific versions of Applicant’s ejection frame were allowed below.
On page 10, Applicant argues that Tagawa teaches a micron-sized particle smaller than the aggregate recited in claim 7 and that the order of steps is not taught or suggested by Tagawa. The Examiner maintains that the particle size is rendered obvious by the micron-sized particle, and that the order of steps would be obvious.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 13 combines three distinct references to meet specific weight ratios of a composition. The Examiner maintains that Grasso provides direction to use a combination of three materials together for the obvious purpose of varying the appearance of an article, and this rejection is maintained.
On page 11, Applicant argues that the fragmenting to less than one inch in claim 14 is not obvious over Witte. However, Applicant is encouraged to reconsider the scope of claim 14 because this does not appear to be what it recites. Applicant further argues that the securing the plurality of feet of the lavatory to the mold in claim 18 is not taught by the cited reference. However, there are no feet in claim 18.
On page 12, Applicant argues that claims 15, 19, and 20 recite details about the cull origin and an order of sealing the mold prior to pouring. The Examiner maintains that the composition is met by the references cited in the rejection, and that the claim does not include the steps of recycling which would distinguish over the similar composition provided by the prior art. The Examiner maintains that the order of steps is obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights