DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/25 has been entered.
Claim Objection
Please provide a space between the unit and number.
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 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuey (US 2016/0288479) in view of Kirk (WO 03/037630) and further in view of Jo et al. (US 20200010722A1).
Re claim 20, Shuey discloses a polymeric gravure printing form, i.e. printing plate [0002] comprising applying a layer of curable composition onto a supporting substrate, i.e. base body, and exposing the composition to actinic radiation including ultraviolet radiation to form a cured layer [7, 95]. The curable composition includes multifunctional acrylated urethane (10], i.e. which would form the polymeric matrix. The composition also comprises a particulate filler including titanium oxide, silica, and zirconium oxide that has particle size of 1-100 nm [151-152, 154], i.e. nanoscale filler.
There is no disclosure in Shuey of sub-micron filler as claimed.
Kirk discloses composition for ink receiving layer for gravure printing plate (Abstract, page 1, lines 5-7 and page 11, lines 13-17). The composition comprises a polymeric polyurethane matrix (page 2, lines 16-18) and nanoparticles having particle size of 1-1000nm (page 2, lines 32-33). The nanoparticles include antimony tin oxide (page 4, line 11). The nanoparticles increase coating hardness, scratch resistance, and abrasion resistance (page 3, lines 24-28).
In light of the motivation for using nanoparticles disclosed by Kirk as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antimony tin nanoparticles of Kirk in Shuey in order to provide increased coating hardness, scratch resistance, and abrasion resistance. Given that Shery in view of Kirk disclose filler and polymer as presently claimed as well as polymerization by UV light, the fillers each would necessarily covalently bond to the polymer matrix while the sub-micron filler would necessarily inherently cause absorption of infrared radiation which is higher than in a composition without a filler.
Further re claim 20, given the same materials are used, the properties of transparency or opaqueness are inherent and the functionality also regarding absorption..
That the outer surface is marked as claimed is a process limitation in a product claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Patentability of an article depends on the article itself and not the method used to produce it (see MPEP 2113). Furthermore, the invention defined by a product-by-process invention is a product NOT a process. In re Bridgeford, 357 F. 2d 679. It is the patentability of the product claimed and NOT of the recited process steps which must be established. In re Brown, 459 F. 29 531. Both Applicant’s and prior art reference’s product are the same.
Further, note Jo teaches outer film 30, Fig. 1 marked via etching to write information (see Abstract, [9-12]) or designs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the film of the combination, as Jo teaches, at the time of the effective filing date to design the exterior film surface.
Re claim 21, Shuey discloses the coating layer can be subjected to grinding or polishing [206, claim 14], i.e. mechanically finished.
Re claim 22, Shuey discloses the coating layer is subjected to gravure printing to form individual cells or letterpress printing to form relief surfaces [217].
Re claims 23-25, given that given that Shery in view of Kirk disclose filler and polymer as presently claimed, the coating layer would necessarily be opaque prior to irradiation with NIR radiation and a provide a color change including that claimed when irradiated with NIR radiation.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and reference applied. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787