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 Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, PEAT needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: polyethylene terephthalate-co-polyethylene adipate (PEAT).
In claim 1, PE needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: polyethylene (PE).
In claim 4, line 2 there needs to be an “are” after “protective layer”.
In claim 5, PTA needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: pure terephthalic acid (PTA).
In claim 5, line 4 there needs to a comma after “diethylene glycol”.
In claim 6, line 4 there needs to be a comma after “catalyst”.
In claim 6, PET needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
In claim 10, HDPE needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: high density polyethylene (HDPE).
In claim 11, PETG needs to be presented as the whole name, such as: poly(ethylene terephthalate co-1,4-cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate) (PETG).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The disclosed polymer species polyethylene terephthalate-co-polyethylene adipate (PEAT) is being interpreted as being the same as poly(ethylene adipate-co-terephthalate).
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 1-11 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency.
The term “high-filling” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, there is nothing in claim 1 that would allow a board to be called high-filling, since no compositional values are given. Based on the specification the only discussion of high filling appears to be when the stone is 70-75%, but if such an interpretation was made based on high filling it is unknown whether this is how the Applicant wants claim 1 to be read (without such a limitation being directly in claim 1).
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite since one cannot determine the meaning “A vacuum of 0.8 mpa.” The units of pressure is a pascal (Pa), the assumption being “pa” in claim 3 is a pascal (Pa). However, what is undeterminable is whether the “m” is supposed to be a milli or a mega. Is the vacuum pressure in claim 3 in millipascals (mPa) or in megapascals (MPa)?
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the Background Art section on page 1 “Poly Ethylen” needs to be spelled polyethylene.
Throughout the specification “mpa” is used as the unit of pressure. This needs to be amended to be either mPa or MPa, per the discussion above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable once the issues above are resolved. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights