DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-12, 20 in the reply filed on 2/13/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden of search. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner made an initial showing of burden in the office action mailed on 12/17/25 and it has been held that “[f]or purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. These inventions have different classifications and status in the art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/13/26.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 6-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuszaj (WO 93/23236).
As to claims 1 and 20, Kuszaj discloses a polymeric composite structure preferable 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). However, this reference is silent to having the filler be in an amount of up to 10% by total weight of the resin.
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).
As to claim 6, 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).
As to claim 11, Kuszaj discloses that the filler can be silica or calcium carbonate (page 4 lines 1-7).
Claims 2-5 and 12 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 2-5 and 12, Kuszaj renders claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to a metal mesh. Kuszaj does disclose fiber reinforcement and meshes in the backing layer.
Krabbe discloses reinforcement or fiber inset embedded within the base material, wherein the material is 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 and 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights