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
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak, II et al. (US 2016/0221227) (Grzeskowiak) in view of Ding (US 2022/0072887).
In reference to claims 1 and 4-8, Grzeskowiak teaches a synthetic mold slab ([0002]) (corresponding to an engineered stone). The system for forming the synthetic molded slab comprises a first stencil defining a first pattern of open spaces and a first pattern of occluded spaces, a second stencil defining a second pattern of open spaces corresponding to the first pattern of occluded spaces and a second pattern of occluded spaces corresponding to the first pattern of open spaces and a third pattern overlaps with the first and second patterns such that the third pattern does not extend through an entire thickness of the slab (claim 9; claim 19) (corresponding to a first full-body stone pattern; a second full-body stone pattern; a third full-body stone pattern; the third full-body stone pattern located on the front surface of the engineered stone and does not extend completely from the front surface to the back surface). The first pattern includes a first particulate mineral mixture and the second pattern includes a second particulate mineral mix, wherein the first and second particulate mineral mixes are differently pigmented ([0011]) (corresponding to a first stone formulation; a second stone formulation, and the second stone formulation is different from the first stone formulation; a first color of the first full-body stone pattern is different from a second color of the second full-body stone pattern). The patterns are formed of differently pigmented particulate mineral mixes ([0012]) (corresponding to the third stone formulation is different from the first stone formulation and the second stone formulation; a third color of the third full-body stone pattern is different from the first color of the first full-body stone pattern and the second color of the second full-body stone pattern).
Grzeskowiak further teaches the first pattern extends through an entire thickness of the slab at a first set of regions where the second pattern is absent and the second pattern extends through the entire thickness of the slab at a second set of regions where the first pattern is absent (claim 16; [0010]) (corresponding to the first full-body stone pattern and the second full-body stone pattern are located on a front surface, a plurality of side surfaces and a back surface opposite the front surface of the engineered stone; the first full-body stone pattern extends from the front surface to the back surface of the engineered stone; the second full-body stone pattern extends from the front surface to the back surface of the engineered stone). FIG. 1 shows the first pattern and the second pattern, 51 and 52, are on a plurality of side surfaces of the slab.
Grzeskowiak does not explicitly teach a printed pattern located on the front surface of the slap, as presently claimed.
Ding teaches an artificial textured stone slab (Abstract). Ding further teaches it is difficult to make textured effects stable and consistent, and the traces of manufacturing are obvious, making it difficult to achieve the natural texture effects of natural stone ([0005]).
Ding further teaches copying the realistic texture effect of natural stone onto artificial stone to achieve a more aesthetic decorative effect and to ensure that the performance of the slab meets standards with quality that is more stable and easier to control ([0006]). A printer is used to print an image in accordance with the size of an artificial stone slab ([0009]) (corresponding to a printed stone pattern located on the front surface of the engineered stone). The penetration depth of the ink of the print onto the artificial stone slab is between 1 and 5 mm ([0026]) (corresponding to a penetration depth of the printed stone pattern on the front surface of the engineered stone is 1 to 5 millimeter (mm)). Within this penetration depth range, the application of the ink on the artificial stone is highly stable and does not fade ([0026]).
In light of the motivation of Ding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have include the printed textured effect on the surface of the slab of Grzeskowiak, in order to provide realistic texture effect of natural stone onto the artificial stone to achieve a more aesthetic decorative effect and to ensure that the performance of the slab meets standards with quality that is more stable and easier to control and ensure the ink on the slab is highly stable and does not fade, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 9, Grzeskowiak in view of Ding teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Grzeskowiak further teaches a thickness of the slab is at least 1 inch, between about 1 inch and 5 inches (i.e., 25.4 mm to 127 mm) ([0025]) (corresponding to a thickness of the engineered stone is between 15mm to 30mm).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 10, Grzeskowiak in view of Ding teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Grzeskowiak teaches the third pattern overlaps with the first and second patterns such that the third pattern does not extend through an entire thickness of the slab (claim 19). Given that the first and second patterns are on the front surface and at least one of the plurality of side surface of the slab, and the third pattern overlaps with the first and second patterns but does not extend through the entire thickness of the slab, it is clear the third pattern is on the front surface and at least one of the plurality of side surface of the slab (FIG. 1; claim 19) (corresponding to the third full-body stone pattern is located on the front surface and one of the plurality of side surfaces of the engineered stone).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak in view of Ding as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (AU 2020/217435) (Thompson).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Grzeskowiak in view of Ding teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Grzeskowiak further teaches particulate mineral mixes each include a quartz material, one or more pigments, and one or more resin binders ([0007]) (corresponding to the first stone formulation, the second stone formation, and the third stone formulation comprises: quartz powder, resin and pigment).
Grzeskowiak in view of Ding does not explicitly teach the first particulate mineral mix, the second particulate mineral mix and the third particulate mineral mix comprise recycling material or aluminum hydroxide, as presently claimed. However, Grzeskowiak teaches the mineral particulate components may include glass ([0024])
Thompson teaches a composite slab comprising recycled glass (p. 1, lines 9-11). The use of recycled glass to prepare the composite slabs presents green alternative to current waste glass treatment and disposal processes used by industry (p. 1, line 32 – p. 2, line 2). The composite slab comprises milled recycled glass, a resin, crystalline silica and one or more non-crystalline additives selected from wetting agent, dye, pigment and a filler (p. 2, lines 14-22) (corresponding to recycling material; the recycling material comprises: recycled glass). The filler is aluminium hydroxide (p. 23, line 1-2) (corresponding to aluminum hydroxide).
In light of the motivation of Thompson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the particulate mineral mixes of Grzeskowiak in view of Ding include recycled milled glass and a suitable filler of aluminum hydroxide, in order to provide a composite slab presenting a green alternative to current waste glass treatments and disposal processes used in by the industry, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights