DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/31/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 12-21 are pending, claims 13-19 are withdrawn and claims 2, 4, and 11 are cancelled.
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, 3, 5-10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuszaj (WO 93/23236) in view of Krabbe (EP 4173531 which has been machine translated).
As to claims 1, 3, 5, 12 and 20, Kuszaj discloses a polymeric composite structure preferably formed of a polymeric shell layer (skin) and a cross-linked thermosetting polymeric backing layer with a filler (resin boded filler matrix) (page 3 lines 22-35). The molded structure can be used in bathtubs, sinks, shower receptors and lavatories (page 1 lines 5-9). The ratio of resin to filler can range from no filler at all to as high as 1:30 depending upon filler and particle size (page 16 lines 3-5). Kuszaj discloses that the filler can be silica or calcium carbonate or glass spheres (spherical particles of silica sand) or mixtures of these fillers (page 4 lines 1-7). Kuczaj further discloses that the backing layer can comprise reinforcement fibers. However, this reference is silent to having the resin be in an amount of up to 10% by total weight of the resin bonded filler matrix layer as well as a metal mesh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have a suitable backing layer. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and /n re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The resin bonded filler matrix layer comprises a ratio of polymer (thermoset resin) to filler to be 1:30. Therefore the amount of polymer within the layer would be in an amount of 3.23% which is less than 10%.
In the alternative it would have been obvious to form the filler in a spherical shape as the court held that the configuration of the claimed shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04.
Krabbe discloses reinforcement or fiber inset embedded within the base material, wherein the material can be metal wires or mesh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kuszaj and used the metal mesh of Krabbe and embedded the metal mesh in the backing layer to provide reinforcement to the backing layer as this would be a suitable alternative as Kuszaj discloses the use of reinforcement material within the backing layer. See MPEP 2144.06. As to claims 3 and 5, the mesh would be considered one of the meshes as claimed as well as having a regular repeating structure unless stated otherwise.
As to claims 6 and 21, Kuszaj discloses that the polymeric shell layer can be an acrylic polymer material (claim 3).
As to claim 7, Kuszaj discloses that the upper portion of the polymeric shell layer forms the upper surface of the composite article (figure 8).
As to claim 8, Kuszaj discloses that the skin comprises a skirt portion that extends down from the periphery of the upper portion (figures). In the alternative it would have been obvious as the shape of the article can be adjusted to the desired end use.
As to claim 9, Kuszaj discloses that the cross-linked backing layer is molded to conform to the shape of the polymeric shell layer and pressed into the polymeric shell (claim 1).
As to claim 10, Kuszaj discloses that the cross-linked resin is polyester resin (page 3 lines 22-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that it is impossible to find a wt% amount from a ratio of polymer to filler. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the ratio of resin to filler can determine the amount of resin within the layer as the layer is only made up of filler and resin. Therefore if the layer had 1 polymer wt% the filler would be in an amount of 30 wt% which would mean the polymer is found in an amount of 3.23 percent of the layer which is less than 10%. Even to further address applicant’s arguments if there are other materials within the layer it would just lower the amount of resin within the layer as the ratio to filler would need to stay intact. When applicant’s point to the 60-90% of polyester resin that is referring to the shell layer and now the reinforced backing layer.
Applicant’s argue that there is no spherical filler particles and the examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that glass spheres are disclosed within Kuszaj and that would read on applicant’s silica sand. Further in the alternative it would have been obvious to the filler be in a spherical shape as the court held that the configuration of the claimed shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04. The specification provides no evidence as there are no examples.
Applicant’s are arguing that the combination of these materials provide for unexpectedly better results. However there is no evidence/examples to support that claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
