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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 6-18-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-18-25.
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 1-5 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 1, the claim recites “wax or other mould release agent”. The specification does not teach what other mould release agents are used. Therefore, it’s not clear what other mould release agent is encompassed by the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linares (2012/0032367) in view of Sullivan (2022/0184859) and Li (English abstract of FR2835469).
Regarding claim 1, Linares discloses a method for manufacturing a preformed swimming pool (para 26), the method comprises:
Providing a mould 16 and providing a convex side 18 of the mould with a first plastic layer 14 supplied in powder form which is heated and applied on the convex side of the mould, and
Prior to applying the first plastic layer, providing the mould with a layer of wax or other mould release agent with a view to remove a half-finished swimming pool or swimming pond 20 form the mould (abstract, fig. 1-8, claim 1, para 9, 22-25).
Linares does not teach the first plastic layer supplied in powder form which is heated and applied concerns a modified polyolefin, providing a fist epoxy layer and a first fiberglass layer on the first plastic layer. However, Sullivan teaches methods for forming large molded objects from polyurea coatings that are exceptionally durable, rigid and strong enough to remain intact under all conditions involving structural integrity, even without structural reinforcements. Such methods comprise providing a mold or substate surface onto which the molded object will be formed. A first gelcoat layer is formed upon the mold, upon which is formed a second epoxy/polyurea coating, followed by a third polyurea coating mixed with chopped fiberglass, and a final fourth epoxy/polyurea coating. The combined coatings are allowed to cure and then removed from the mold. Such methods are exceptionally effect in the manufacture of pools and spas (abstract, fig. 1-7, claim 1, 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Linares with the epoxy layer and fiberglass layer as taught by Sullivan in order to form a multi-layer plastics composite swimming pool.
Li teaches a swimming pool shell 10 (fig. 1-2) made from a first thermoplastic material, e.g. of polyethylene, polypropylene or recycled thermoplastic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Linares with a modified polyolefin since Li teaches that polyolefin is a preferred material for a swimming pool shell.
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan teaches providing a second epoxy layer on the first epoxy layer and the first fiberglass layer (abstract, fig. 1, claim 1). Sullivan does not teach a second fibrelgass layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second fireglass layer in order to further strengthen the swimming pool.
Regarding claim 5, Linares discloses wherein after polymerization, the preformed swimming pool or swimming pond, is removed from the mould for further finishing and installation on site (claim 1 fig. 8).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linares in view of Sullivan and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ten Berge (WO93/17851).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan does not teach wherein the first epoxy layer is polyester or viny ester. However, Ten Berge teaches a powder coating material used as swimming pools (col. 5, line 5-10). The powder may be polyester (claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyester as the first epoxy layer since Ten Berge teaches that polyester is useful as a coating material for swimming pools.
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan does not teach wherein the second epoxy layer is polyester or vinylester. . However, Ten Berge teaches a powder coating material used as swimming pools (col. 5, line 5-10). The powder may be polyester (claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyester as the second epoxy layer since Ten Berge teaches that polyester is useful as a coating material for swimming pools.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights