DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application is a CIP of Application 17/563,374, and the Examiner considered the filing date of instant claim 1. The features of “mixing a resin with glass at a ratio of resin to glass of from about 45% to about 70% by weight of the total to form a composite mixture”, “heated die”, “curing the composite mixture” and the “stiffness of at least 10,000,000 lb/in2 per foot of width” were not recited in Application 17/563,374, and therefore claim 1 is given the effective filing date of the instant application (April 24, 2025). Therefore, the publication of the parent application (Woodlief US 20220203632) is applicable as prior art.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodlief (US 20220203632) in view of Padmanabhan (US 20130115412).
As to claims 1 and 3, Woodlief teaches a process for making a walkable tank cover (Abstract) with increased slip resistance (title) comprising pultruding ([0014]) a composite of glass ([0014]) and resin ([0014]) while contacting a patterned release fabric with the composite (claim 1). The Woodlief process teaches embedding the release fabric on a side of the component (claim 1) and removing the patterned release fabric from the composite component to form a walkable tank cover having slip resistance (claim 1).
Woodlief is silent to mixing a resin with glass at a ratio of resin:glass of 45% to about 70%, a heated die, curing, and a stiffness of at least 10,000,000 lb/in2 per foot of width.
Padmanabhan teaches mixing resin with glass at a weight ratio of 50% ([0035]) and pulling the composite mixture through a heated die to cure the composite mixture ([0010]). While Padmanabhan does not teach a stiffness measurement, since the instant application uses a particular ratio of glass fibers and urethane (see instant claims 1 and 3) and Padmanabhan also teaches the same ratio of glass fibers and (poly)urethane ([0017]), the same resulting stiffness would be achieved by Padmanabhan as in the instant application.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Padmanabhan into Woodlief because Woodlief teaches/suggests pultrusion of glass fibers and urethane to form a composite article, and this is what Padmanabhan provides.
As to claim 2, Woodlief teaches a woven fabric (claim 2) that may be glass ([0014]). As to claim 4, the Woodlief process does not appear to be conducted with a tape or coating. As to claim 5, the Woodlief process can include a process such as painting ([0016]) which would provide UV protection. As to claim 6, while the particular thickness of the Woodlief panel is not specifically disclosed, in light of its use as a tank cover similar to the instant application (compare instant specification to Abstract of Woodlief), one would have found it obvious to optimize or select the appropriate thickness to provide the tank cover and arrive at the same value as claimed. As to claims 7-11, Woodlief teaches a patterned release fabric having an open polygonal mesh pattern comprising triangles (claims 4-5) of the claimed opening size and material (claims 6-7) and coated with PTFE (claims 8-9). As to claims 12-14, Woodlief’s patterned release fabric is configured to be embedded into a desire thickness as claimed and has a weight within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fanucci (US 20090126860) is close prior art that shows pultrusion of a composite with a glass/Teflon release layer sent through a heated pultrusion die and subsequent removal from the cured part. An additional rejection was considered over Fanucci in view of Padmanabhan and Nord (of record), but would be cumulative over the rejection presented above.
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