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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 3/18/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iitzhak-Sigron (WO 2019/043707 A1) in view of Park et al (US 2006/0293433 A1).
Iitzhak-Sigron teaches a marbled molded product (e.g., textured article) which is an injection-molded product of a mixture, the mixture comprising a thermoplastic resin comprising one selected from the group consisting of polycarbonate and polypropylene, and combinations thereof; and fine pigment particles (e.g., fine mineral-based additives and/or pigment), wherein a pattern forming a texture is formed on a surface of the injection-molded product (abstract; page 2, 5-10).
Regarding the limitation “fine pigment particles having a size of 25 µm to 2,000 µm,” Iitzhak-Sigron teaches fine mineral-based additives and/or pigments in the form of powders; wherein fine powders having an average particles size of 0.1 to 100 µm and in addition average particles size of less than 500 µm (page 7-9). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Iitzhak-Sigron, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the fine pigment particles are used without being coated with a separate dye, and wherein the mixture does not include a separate dye; Iitzhak-Sigron teaches the pigment may be a loose powder and be in the form of inorganic pigments, metal particles, glass, or ceramics (page 7, 8), which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the fine pigment particles are used without being coated with a separate dye; and, wherein the mixture does not include a separate dye. Furthermore, since Iitzhak-Sigron teaches the use of pigments (i.e., an alternative to dyes), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to exclude dyes from the pigments and mixture, omission of an element and its function (i.e., coloring ability) is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the pattern which is formed on the surface of the injection-molded product has a depth of 100 nm to 1,000 µm;” “wherein the pattern has a depth of 10 µm to 50 µm and a width of 50 µm to 300 µm, and the texture formed by the pattern is a hairline texture;” “wherein the pattern has a depth of 8µm to 12 µm and a width of 50 µm to 100 µm, and the texture formed by the pattern is a woven texture;” and “wherein the pattern has a depth of 50 µm to 100 µm, and the texture formed by the pattern is a leather texture;” Iitzhak-Sigron further teaches the textured article may comprise a texture over at least a portion of its external surface to mimic or imitate a composite naturally-based material, e.g., a texture and/or visual appearance and/or embossed pattern of a composite naturally-based material selected from stone, earth-ware, clay, ceramics, marble, plaster, concrete, wood, wood-chip, etc (page 2, 11, 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pattern including its type or visual appearance, depth, width, and roughness to optimize the external surface to mimicking or imitating a composite naturally-based material.
Iitzhak-Sigron fails to suggest fine pigment particles comprising one selected from the group consisting of plate-shaped mica, cellulose, viscose, aluminum (Al), pearl, and combinations thereof.
Park teaches molded products comprising flaky pigments such as metallic flakes mixed in with a polymer resin such as ABS, polypropylene, or polycarbonate; wherein the flaky pigments have a diameter the size of 10-250 µm, and aluminum pigments are given as a specific example (abstract, para 34-35, 41, 61-64). Park further teaches a marble product having excellent appearance, i.e., having a uniform color even in resin flow lines or resin weld lines, and in which there is no degradation in the physical properties of the polymer resin contained therein and can be manufactured at a low cost (abstract, para 3, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the molded marble products of Park with the marbled molded product of Iitzhak-Sigron for molded marble products having excellent appearance that can be manufactured at a low cost.
In the addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the flaky aluminum pigments of Park for the metal particles of Iitzhak-Sigron, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the fine pigment particles are used without being coated with a separate dye, and wherein the mixture does not include a separate dye; Iitzhak-Sigron teaches the pigment may be a loose powder and be in the form of inorganic pigments, metal particles, glass, or ceramics (page 7, 8), which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the fine pigment particles are used without being coated with a separate dye; and, wherein the mixture does not include a separate dye. Furthermore, since Iitzhak-Sigron teaches the use of pigments (i.e., an alternative to dyes), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to exclude dyes from the pigments and mixture, omission of an element and its function (i.e., coloring ability) is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP § 2144.04 II).
With regard to the inorganic pigments, metal particles, glass, or ceramics being considered mineral-based additive and not pigments, this is not persuasive since also qualifies or defines inorganic pigments, metal particles, glass, or ceramics as pigments (page 7, 8).
In regard to the contention that Iitzhak-Sigron does not specifically teach or suggest the claimed average roughness (Ra) of the surface of the injection-molded product; Iitzhak-Sigron further teaches the textured article may comprise a texture over at least a portion of its external surface to mimic or imitate a composite naturally-based material, e.g., a texture and/or visual appearance and/or embossed pattern of a composite naturally-based material selected from stone, earth-ware, clay, ceramics, marble, plaster, concrete, wood, wood-chip, etc (page 2, 11, 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pattern including its type or visual appearance, depth, width, and roughness to optimize the external surface to mimicking or imitating a composite naturally-based material.
In further response to applicant's argument that Iitzhak-Sigron does not specifically teach or suggest the claimed average roughness (Ra) of the surface of the injection-molded product, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the contention that Park's molded products having a metallic texture should be equated with the claimed marbled molded product. This is not persuasive, since Park teaches “the appearances of polymer resin molded products have been diversified using special effects providing, for example, metallic textures, pearl textures, holographic textures, marble textures, etc” which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious the use of its metal pigments in the marbled molded product of Iitzhak-Sigron. Furthermore, Iitzhak-Sigron teaches the pigment may be a loose powder and be in the form of inorganic pigments, metal particles, glass, or ceramics (page 7, 8). It is also noted that Iitzhak-Sigron teaches texturing additives (i.e., pigments) in the form of metal fibers (page 8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights