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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gittins et al, US Patent Publication 20110168057 in view of Kunal et al, US Patent Publication 2014/0051310.
Regarding claims 1-24, Gittins discloses a formulation for a fibrous non-woven facing material, wherein the formulation comprises:
(i) a binder (coating vehicle [0007]);
(ii) a filler (GCC [0021]); and
(iii) an extender (kaolin [0020]);
wherein a median particle size, d50, of the extender is equal to or less than 3.5 µm less than 2 and smaller [0020]), and wherein the extender has a non-spherical morphology (teaches the use of “equivalent spherical diameter implying a non-spherical morphology [0016]);
wherein a median particle size, d50, of the filler is equal to or less than 3.0 µm (less than 0.5 microns [0021]) and a d90 equal to or less than 6.0 µm (less than 5 [0021]);
and wherein the formulation comprises less than 13 wt% titanium dioxide on a dry solids basis (Abstract) in the claimed ratios (see Table with example and [0026-0029]).
It is also noted that do to the same materials being utilizing in the coating formation the refractive index of the formulation and produce would also hold the same values. (see In re Best).
Gittins is silent to the value of a d10 measurement, but does teach d50 values that are less than the claimed amount [0021].
While it is not explicitly stated, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that if the d50 value is less than 1 micron, then the d10 value would also have to be less than 1 micron.
Gittens teaches that the formulation is utilized to coat a substrate, but is merely silent as to what the substrate is.
In the same field of endeavor of making a coated material for composite uses, Kunal teaches that the surface layer of the product can be a veil made up of a non-woven construction that is then coated of impregnated with the finder and other additives [0061 and 0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention totalize the formulation of Gittins on the veil substrate of Kunal for the benefit of utilizing a known components (the formulation) on a known substrate (non-woven material) to arrive at a predictable end result in a conventional manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights