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 Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 – 12 use reference numerals. The use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 does not end with a period. Per MPEP § 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5, and 7 – 13 (as appropriate) of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,645 (hereinafter “Saadatmanesh”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 1 is directed to a concrete composition (“polymer concrete”) comprising alternating layers of polymer and aggregate material.
Saadatmanesh’s layers are considered to alternate in that (1) composite layers as recited in Saadatmanesh’s claim 1 comprise are allowed to include reinforcing material between the polymer layer and the aggregate material layer (see Saadatmanesh’s claim 13) and (2) such composite layers are stacked. The simplest construction of Saadatmanesh’s claimed polymer concrete would have therefore been understood to include alternating layers.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 2 recites a number of layers ranges from 2 to 20.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 1 recites the composition is acid resistant.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 3 recites the polymer comprises at least 90 wt% of a vinyl ester resin, and about 0.5 wt% to about 5 wt% of peroxide.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Saadatmanesh’s claim 5 recites the polymer composition further comprises about 0.05 wt% to about 0.5 wt% of a promoter.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 7 recites the polymer comprises at least 90 wt% of an epoxy or polyurethane resin.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 8 recites the aggregate material comprises quartz, silica, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 9 recites the aggregate material (120) has a grit size of about 16 grit to about 60 grit.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 10 recites a thickness of each composite layer ranges from about 1 mm to about 9 mm.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Saadatmanesh’s claim 11 recites the concrete composition further comprises a reinforcing material disposed in at least one of the composite layers.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Saadatmanesh’s claim 12 recites the reinforcing material comprises carbon or glass fabric or rods.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Saadatmanesh’s claim 13 recites the reinforcing material is disposed between the polymer and the aggregate material.
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 3 and 9 – 12 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.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “the composition” in l. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While claims 1 and 3 refer to a “concrete composition”, the recitations in claim 1 to “polymer” and “aggregate material” also necessarily have their own compositions (a fact confirmed with claim 5 referring to a “polymer composition”). The instant specification discusses concrete compositions having acid resistance as a whole (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0036]) as well as polymers (e.g. ¶ [0004]). Therefore, the examiner recommends clarifying the composition which is referenced.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation “each composite layer” in l. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation “the composite layers” in l. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, each of claims 11 and 12 depends directly on claim 10. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 10.
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, 7, and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duff (US 3,949,144 A).
Regarding claim 1, Duff discloses a concrete composition (“construction” 20: e.g. Fig. 2; Col. 1, l. 33, to Col. 6, l. 67) comprising alternating layers of polymer and aggregate material (“inner layer” 28, 30 alternating with “epoxy resin-containing concrete” 22, 24, 26: e.g. Fig. 2; Col. 1, ll. 56 – 66; Col. 2, ll. 13 – 28).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Duff discloses the aggregate material comprises quartz, silica, or a combination thereof (“sand”: e.g. Col. 2, ll. 48 – 50; Col. 4, ll. 1 – 6).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Duff discloses the concrete composition further comprises a reinforcing material disposed in at least one of the composite layers (“fiber reinforcing material”: e.g. Col. 2, ll. 13 – 28; Col. 4, ll. 55 – 68).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Duff discloses the reinforcing material comprises, e.g., glass fabric or rods (e.g. Col. 4, ll. 55 – 68).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Duff discloses the reinforcing material is disposed between the polymer and the aggregate material (e.g. Fig. 2; Col. 6, ll. 34 – 41).
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bussio (US 2014/0115975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bussio discloses a concrete composition (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0109]) comprising alternating layers of polymer (“resin” 150: e.g. ¶¶ [0038] – [0040]) and aggregate material (“aggregate” 124, 124A: e.g.¶¶ [0038] – [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Bussio discloses the composition is acid resistant (“non-corrosive”, used in “corrosive environments”: e.g. Abstract; ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Bussio discloses the aggregate material comprises, e.g. silica (“sand”: e.g. ¶¶ [0056], [0079]).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duff as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Duff depicts an embodiment wherein the number of layers is 2 (considering a layer as a pair of the “inner layer” 28, 30 with an adjacent one of the “epoxy resin-containing concrete” 22, 24, 26: e.g. Fig. 2; Col. 2, ll. 13 – 28; this is consistent with the interpretation for the “number of layers (105)” in the instant specification: e.g. ¶ [0027]).
Duff does not set an upper bound for the number of layers but does say the number can be set as desired (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 23 – 26).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a number of layers to range from 2 to 40, e.g. to satisfy a particular desire as Duff suggests.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Duff discloses the polymer comprises, e.g., an epoxy resin (e.g. Col. 5, ll. 34 – 41).
Although Duff is not explicit as to the polymer comprises at least 90 wt% of an epoxy or polyurethane resin, Duff’s process for applying a layer of the polymer, in at least one embodiment, needs to heavily saturate a reinforcing material with the epoxy resin (e.g. Col. 5, ll. 34 – 41) and therefore including excessive amounts of material other than the epoxy resin would have been seen as beneficial to maximizing the amount of saturation Duff seeks.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the polymer such that is comprises at least 90 wt% of the epoxy resin, the motivation being to maximize Duff’s desired saturation.
Regarding claim 8, although Duff is not explicit as to the aggregate material having a grit size of about 16 grit to about 60 grit, Duff does disclose the aggregate material may be sand or other fine material (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 48 – 51), the size of which can be dictated based on the thinness of the layer (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 65 – 66, reference “thin-walled” articles, where thickness of layers necessarily places size limits on the aggregate material). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “sand” encompasses both coarse and fine varieties, as would be needed for thinner articles.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the aggregate material Duff discloses to have a grit size of about 16 grit to about 60 grit, the motivation being to facilitate manufacture of “thin-walled” articles of the concrete composition.
Regarding claim 9, although Duff is not explicit as to a thickness of each composite layer ranges from about 1 mm to about 9 mm, Duff notes the particular thickness of each composite layer (which the examiner currently understands, based on the instant specification, to be the total thickness of a single polymer layer and a single aggregate material) is based on the desired total thickness of the concrete composition, which can be built to any size or configuration (e.g. Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 12). Using Duff’s Fig. 2 as a guide, noting a process for making the concrete composition in Duff’s Col. 5, ll. 42 – 52, the aggregate material layer can be substantially thicker than the polymer layer, and thus would take up the substantial majority of a thickness of 1/8 inch to 2 inches or more as Duff discloses (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 6 – 12), i.e. 3.175 mm to 50.8 mm or more total thickness.
From these disclosures, the examiner observes Duff’s thicknesses for the composite layer are on the order claimed, and Duff provides a motivation to determine a suitable thickness for the composite layers, namely to suit the needs of an application.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide each composite layer with a thickness ranging from about 1 mm to about 9 mm, the motivation being to provide a thickness suitable for an intended purpose of the concrete composition.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussio as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Bussio discloses a number of composite layers is at least 2 but may be repeated as many times as necessary to form a structure with the polymer concrete of a required height (e.g. ¶ [0040]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a number of the composite layers range from 2 to 40 in order to meet height requirements of a structure formed with the polymer concrete.
Regarding claim 8, although Bussio is not explicit as to the aggregate material having a grit size of about 16 grit to about 60 grit, Bussio does disclose the aggregate material may be a fine and/or coarse aggregate (e.g. ¶ [0056]). Given the requirement for polymer to interact with gaps between aggregate (e.g. ¶ [0055]), decreasing the aggregate material size reduces the gaps between aggregate, hampering the interaction and thereby introducing structural weaknesses.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the aggregate material to have a grit size of about 16 grit to about 60 grit in order to avoid structural weaknesses.
Regarding claim 9, although Bussio is not explicit as to a thickness of each composite layer ranging from about 1 mm to about 9 mm, Bussio does disclose thickness of composite layers is set according the ability of a polymer to interact with the aggregate and not create structural weaknesses, whereby smaller thicknesses would have been understood to better avoid such weaknesses since the polymer is better able to interact with the aggregate (e.g. ¶ [0055]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a thickness of each composite layer range from about 1 mm to about 9 mm in order to reduce the chance of structural weaknesses.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harry (US 5,079,050 A) in view of Bussio.
Regarding claim 1, Harry discloses a polymer concrete comprising polymer and aggregate material (e.g. Col. 1, l. 50, to Col. 5, l. 50).
Although Harry is not explicit as to the polymer concrete comprising alternating layers of polymer and an aggregate material, these features would have been obvious in view of Bussio.
Bussio discloses prior art methods of making polymer concretes wherein the polymer and the aggregate are mixed prior to molding suffer a drawback with respect to curing times which can ruin or temporarily render inoperable the mixer (e.g. ¶ [0007]) and proposes a method to avoid this drawback wherein layers of aggregate and polymer are alternately applied (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0109]).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood premature curing would hinder the ability of the polymer concrete to successfully form the required shape, e.g. containers which Harry discloses are made with the polymer concrete (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 50 – 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Harry’s polymer concrete to comprise alternating layers of polymer and an aggregate material as Bussio suggests, the motivation being to ensure proper formation of a container with the polymer concrete.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Bussio discloses a number of composite layers is at least 2 but may be repeated as many times as necessary to form a structure with the polymer concrete of a required height (e.g. ¶ [0040]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a number of the composite layers range from 2 to 20 in order to meet height requirements of a structure formed with the polymer concrete.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Harry discloses the composition is acid resistant (e.g. Col. 1, l. 50, to Col. 5, l. 50)
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Harry discloses the polymer layer is prepared from a polymer composition comprising at least 90 wt% of a vinyl ester resin, and about 0.2 wt% to about 2 wt% of peroxide (amount of “vinylester resin” overlaps claimed range or, taken in conjunction with “styrene monomer” understood to cure therewith, lies within the claimed range for the vinyl ester resin while the amount of peroxide is for an amount of “methyl ethyl ketone peroxide” or “cumene hydroperoxide”: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 18 – 31; Col. 4, ll. 56 – 63).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Harry discloses the polymer composition further comprises about 0.22 wt% to about 1.1 wt% of a promoter (total for cobalt naphthalate and dimethyl aniline, although the individual ranges thereof—0.2 wt% to 0.6 wt% and 0.02 wt% to 0.5 wt%, respectively—also overlap the claimed range: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 27 – 28).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Harry discloses the aggregate material comprises, e.g., silica (e.g. Col. 3, ll. 10 – 13, 32 – 36).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Harry discloses the aggregate material has a grit size of about 12 grit to about 36 grit or finer (1/32” to 1/16” crystalline silica or “fine silica”: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 32 – 36).
Regarding claim 9, although Bussio is not explicit as to a thickness of each composite layer ranging from about 1 mm to about 9 mm, Bussio does disclose thickness of composite layers is set according the ability of a polymer to interact with the aggregate and not create structural weaknesses, whereby smaller thicknesses would have been understood to better avoid such weaknesses since the polymer is better able to interact with the aggregate (e.g. ¶ [0055]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a thickness of each composite layer range from about 1 mm to about 9 mm in order to reduce the chance of structural weaknesses.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Harry discloses the polymer concrete, as modified in view of Bussio, further comprises a reinforcing material disposed in at least one of the composite layers (“chopped fiber glass strands” are provided in the polymer and increase physical strength: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 7 – 18; Col. 4, ll. 5 – 8) .
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Harry discloses the polymer concrete further comprises a reinforcing material comprising, e.g., glass rods (“chopped fiber glass strands” are provided in the polymer and increase physical strength: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 7 – 18; Col. 4, ll. 5 – 8).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Harry discloses the polymer concrete, as modified in view of Bussio, further comprises a reinforcing material disposed between the polymer layer and the aggregate material (Harry discloses “chopped fiber glass strands” are provided in the polymer and increase physical strength: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 7 – 18; Col. 4, ll. 5 – 8; Bussio’s methods of alternating polymer and aggregate as cited in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 would cause such glass strands when mixed with resin to collect on the aggregate layers: e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0109]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harry and Bussio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN
109267102 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 6, although Harry is not explicit as to the polymer layer is prepared from a polymer composition comprising at least 90 wt% of an epoxy or polyurethane resin, this feature would have been obvious in view of Yang.
Yang discloses vinyl ester resins for a similar purpose as Harry (electrolysis cells: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0067]) wherein the vinyl ester resin formed from a novolac epoxy vinyl ester resin advantageous for not contaminating an electrolyte bath with itself or iron ions (e.g. ¶¶ [0047], [0048]).
Harry discloses the polymer layer is prepared from a polymer composition comprising at least 90 wt% of a vinyl ester resin (amount of “vinylester resin” overlaps claimed range or, taken in conjunction with “styrene monomer” understood to cure therewith, lies within the claimed range for the vinyl ester resin: e.g. Col. 3, ll. 18 – 31; Col. 4, ll. 56 – 63).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ a novloac epoxy vinyl ester resin as Yang suggests for the vinyl ester resin Harry discloses present in an amount of at least 90 wt%, the motivation being to prevent contamination of the electrolysis bath when the polymer concrete is in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights