DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the amendment filed on February 13, 2026, claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 9, 12 – 15, 18 – 24, 28 – 30, 33 – 36 are pending. Claims 1, 8 – 9, 23, 29 – 30 have been amended and claims 2 – 3, 7, 10 – 11, 16 – 17, 25 – 27, 31 – 32 have been canceled. Claims 35 – 36 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claims 9, 29 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.
Regarding claims 9, 29:
Claim 9 has been amended to require that a decorative layer is produced before step a). The scope of claim 9 does not indicate where or on what the decorative layer is produced. It then becomes unclear whether the step is part of the recited method for producing a composite film or part of a broader invention; the claim limitation is not commensurate in scope with the preamble of the claimed invention.
Present claim 29 is rejected on the basis of its parent claim 9 and furthermore aggravates the lack of clarity because the production of the decorative layer by digital printing aggravates the deficiencies of claim 9; printing requires a surface upon which information and images are marked/printed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 9, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 requires that the surface of the support material is supplied with an adhesive layer before the application of the polyurethane-based hot-melt layer in step a.). However, parent claim 1 requires direct application of the polyurethane-based hot-melt layer, i.e. no intervening layers depositing between the support material and the polyurethane-based hot-melt layer. Accordingly, present claim 8 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 9, 29:
In light of the indefiniteness of present claim 9, one interpretation of dependent claims 9 and 29 require the application of a decorative layer onto the support material. Like the deficiency of present claim 8, parent claim 1 requires direct application of the polyurethane-based hot-melt layer, i.e. no intervening layers depositing between the support material and the polyurethane-based hot-melt layer. Accordingly, present claims 9 and 29 fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purposes of art rejections, the Examiner will adopt the broader of the scopes between the deficient dependents claim and its parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 12 – 15, 18 – 22, 24, 34 – 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. US20100068499A1 in view of Buehring et al. EP 2272663 A1 (hereinafter “Buehring”) and Becker-Weimann et al. US 20180353992 A1 (hereinafter “Becker-Weimann”), and optionally in view of Zhao US 20170029653 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 12, 15, 18, 20, 34:
Kanagawa is directed to a leather-like sheet and methods of making such a leather-like sheet [composite films] (Abstract). Kanagawa discloses that their method and prior art methods comprises: applying a hot-melt polyurethane resin – intended to form a surface skin layer – directly onto a release paper [support material, meeting claim 12]; applying a fibrous substrate onto the hot-melt urethane resin; curing the hot-melt urethane resin; and removing the release paper from the release paper after curing [meeting claim 20] ([0009], [0029], [0113] – [0114], [0125], [0147] – [0148], [0156], [0187] – [0190]). The application of the hot-melt polyurethane resin can be accomplished using a coating apparatus such as a roll coater [coating apparatus, meeting claim 15 where no smoothing roller and no roll bar is present] ([0107] – [0109], [0130]).
Kanagawa discloses that the polyurethane hot-melt resin contains a polyol such as polypropylene glycol ([0024], [0034], [0059]), a polyisocyanate such as toluene diisocyanate ([0024], [0034], [0067]), and a photopolymerization initiator ([0024], [0029], [0042]). The holt melt cures under both UV light and moisture [meeting claim 34, also emission-free and solvent-free] ([0042], [0130] – [0132], [0147] – [0148], [0156]).
Finally, Kanagawa discloses a step of applying a polyurethane or acrylic resin layer onto the surface of the surface skin layer to provide inter alia a surface design ([0141]).
Kanagawa does not expressly teach a step of applying a lacquer layer on the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer in order to produce the composite film on the support material; and does not expressly teach that the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is a moisture-curing, solvent-free, and emission-free polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer.
With regards to the application of a lacquer layer on the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer in order to produce the composite film on the support material:
Buehring is directed to a method for producing a leather composite film in a reverse coating process (Abstract). Buehring discloses that the method is practiced on a roll-to-roll apparatus as depicted in Fig. 1 (page 5 – top of page 6). Buehring discloses that their method comprises: coating the carrier tape with a second plastic compound with a moisture-crosslinking solvent-less reactive polyurethane-based thermoplastic applied as a hot-melt adhesive by devices such as slot dies and [applicator, additionally meeting claim 15] rolls (Abstract; page 3 last paragraph, page 4 6th paragraph – 10th paragraph “Preferably, the laminating composition may be a reactive solvent-free polyurethane-based thermoplastic, which crosslinks under the action of moisture”); laminating a leather layer onto the hot-melt adhesive (page 3); and applying a [singular, fully meeting claim 4] paint layer [lacquer] as an outer coating of the leather, which is on the second plastic compound [on the hot-melt layer] (page 4 9th paragraph, page 5 3rd paragraph). Similar to Kanagawa, Buehring discloses that painting (alongside embossing) allows for desired surface structures and appearances, especially to match the appearance of genuine leather (page 3 5th paragraph, page 5 6th paragraph).
In view of the prior art as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kanagawa by applying a lacquer layer on the fibrous substrate [and thus on the hot-melt layer under the broadest reasonable interpretation] because Buehring suggests that such a step aids in matching the appearance of genuine leather or otherwise to impart desired appearances on a final product, which Kanagawa likewise suggests in a different context.
With regards to the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is a moisture-curing, solvent-free, and emission-free polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer:
Becker-Weimann is directed to a process for producing structured surfaces (Abstract). Becker-Weimann discloses a process comprising: applying a layer made from a reactive hotmelt (Abstract; [0014]); and applying a lacquer layer onto the reactive hotmelt ([0016]). The lacquer layer may have a thickness between 5 to 25 micrometers ([0035]). The reactive hotmelt is based on polyurethane and is an emission and solvent-free product that is solid at room temperature ([0033]).
As it is readily apparent that emissions from an industrial process would be deleterious to the environment, Becker-Weimann implies a desire to use emission-less reactive hotmelts to minimize environmental damage. Optionally Zhao, directed to low odor and fast curing compositions, likewise discloses that historically, changing health and environmental legislation have restricted solvent emissions and solvent-free coating materials and lacquers have become much more common ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is an emission-free polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is also emission-free or alternatively modified the method of Kanagawa in view of Buehring by using an emission-free, solvent-free and moisture-curing polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer because Becker-Weimann, in view of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated to minimize environmental impacts and optionally Zhao likewise fairly suggests the same.
Regarding claim 5:
Kanagawa discloses that the thickness of the surface skin layer [reactive hot-melt layer] may be e.g. 150 µm ([0047], [0156]), within the general range of 30 µm and 800 µm ([0139]).
Regarding claim 6:
Kanagawa in view of Buehring does not expressly teach that has a thickness in the range of from 5 micrometers to 25 micrometers.
Becker-Weimann discloses that the lacquer layer may have a thickness between 5 to 25 micrometers ([0035]). Becker-Weimann discloses that the lacquer layer provides protection from ambient air, provides a surface effect and allows embossing of the reactive hotmelt without recovery effects, thus providing improved haptic properties and optical properties ([0035] – [0036], [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kanagawa in view of Buehring and Becker-Weimann by adding a lacquer layer as taught by Becker-Weimann, which has a thickness between 5 to 25 micrometers, because Becker-Weimann teaches that such a lacquer layer provides protection for reactive hotmelt layers that are previously deposited from ambient air and enhances the embossing ability of the reactive hotmelt layer without recovery effects.
Regarding claim 19:
Kanagawa discloses that an embossing roller may be used to provide an embossing treatment ([0138]).
Regarding claims 21, 35:
Kanagawa discloses that a filler and a wax may be added as part of the reactive hot-melt layer ([0099]).
Regarding claim 22, 24:
Kanagawa discloses that both in the prior art and their disclosure, various rolls may be used to perform operations in the production of the leather-like sheet, e.g. coating, embossing; as well as winders and the act of rolling the formed sheet into a roll ([0004], [0009], [0021], [0125], [0130], [0188]). Kanagawa therefore suggests that the leather-like sheet is formed roll-to-roll.
Kanagawa does not expressly teach that the coating apparatus is a roll-to-roll apparatus.
Buehring discloses that their method is practiced on a roll-to-roll apparatus as depicted in Fig. 1, including support reuse (page 5 – top of page 6). Beuhring disclose that the practice of their method upon their recited apparatus results in a cost advantage over existing technology of leather production (page 5 8th paragraph). Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the apparatus disclosed allows for continuous production of a composite sheet of material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kanagawa by practicing the method of Kanagawa in view of Buehring on a roll-to-roll apparatus like that of Buehring because Buehring teaches that the use of such an apparatus with a similar methodology creates costs savings, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated an apparatus that would allow for continuous production of material using rollers like that of Kanagawa.
Claim(s) 8 – 9, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs US2016/0130467 A1 (hereinafter “Fuchs”) in view of Fandrey et al. WO 2010112511 A1 (hereinafter “Fandrey”, full machine translation provided), Becker-Weimann, Ehrmann et al. US 2009/0022984 A11 (hereinafter “Ehrmann”), and optionally Zhao.
Regarding claims 9, 29:
Fuchs is directed to a paint replacement film and a method of forming a paint replacement film (Abstract). Fuchs discloses a method comprising:
providing a releasable carrier/backing layer [support material] ([0028], [0037], [0075]); applying an undercoat of acrylic release material by solution [therefore a lacquer] to the backing layer ([0075] – [0076]) and optionally applying an adhesive layer [meeting claims 2, 3, 32] ([0036]);
providing a liquid formulation comprised of an isocyanate and polyol [polyurethane-based] and cast-coating [applying] the liquid formulation onto the release-coated backing layer to form a polymer layer and contain fillers ([0035], [0055] – [0057], [0084] – [0086]), wherein the thickness of the polymer layer may be e.g. 50 to 100 micrometers [meeting claims 4, 5] ([0052]);
applying another or more polymer layers that may or may not be colored [lacquer layer, one coat, meeting claim 7] ([0019]);
optionally embossing a microstructured surface onto an applied adhesive layer ([0028]); and
removing the backing or liner ([0028]), rendering a paint replacement film with all layers.
The polyurethane-based paint replacement film to be produced is preferably from isocyanates such as hexamethylene diisocyanate or 4,4’-dicyclohexylmethanediisocyanate ([0042]) and preferably a polycaprolactone or an aliphatic polycarbonate polyester ([0044]).
Fuchs does not expressly teach an embodiment where the polyurethane-based layer is a reactive hot-melt layer that is moisture-curable, solvent-free and emission-free; and that the moisture-curable, solvent-free and emission-free polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt is produced from one or more isocyanate-reactive polymers selected from the group comprising the recited isocyanate-reactive polymers and one or more polyisocyanates selected from the group comprising the recited one or more polyisocyanates.
However, Fuchs does disclose that the adhesive layer may be hot melt coated, and thus that in general hot melt coatings are known in the art ([0032]).
Fandrey is directed to adhesion promoters for painting and printing where a reactive melt mass is used (Abstract). Fandrey discloses that adhesion promoters can include a polyurethane-based layer that is used to adhere to subsequently applied lacquer layers (page 3 “applying a primer layer containing … thickness of less than 20 microns”). Fandrey further discloses that such polyurethane-based layers are based on reactive melts that react with the aid of moisture present in ambient air [meeting claim 16] and are solvent-free (page 3). Finally, Fandrey discloses that polyurethane coating formulations that are applied as reactive melts are not required to completely cure before lacquer layers are applied onto the hot melt coating, thus saving production time (end of page 3 to page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fuchs by replacing the isocyanate and polyol liquid formulation as an isocyanate and polyol reactive hot melt formulation in the method of Fuchs because Fandrey teaches that applying coatings as hot melt formulations allows for subsequent coating steps of lacquer and other components before the complete curing of the hot melt adhesive, thus saving production time.
With regards to the reactive hot-melt layer that is emission-free:
The disclosure of Becker-Weimann discussed above also applies to the present rejection. As it is readily apparent that emissions from an industrial process would be deleterious to the environment, Becker-Weimann implies a desire to use emission-less reactive hotmelts to minimize environmental damage. Optionally Zhao, directed to low odor and fast curing compositions, likewise discloses that historically, changing health and environmental legislation have restricted solvent emissions and solvent-free coating materials and lacquers have become much more common ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is an emission-free polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer is also emission-free or alternatively modified the method of Beahring by using an emission-free, solvent-free and moisture-curing polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer because Becker-Weimann, in view of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated to minimize environmental impacts and optionally Zhao likewise fairly suggests the same.
With regards to the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt being produced from the one or more isocyanate-reactive polymers selected from the group comprising the recited isocyanate-reactive polymers and the one or more polyisocyanates selected from the group comprising the recited one or more polyisocyanates:
, Ehrmann is directed to methods of sealing parts of an article surface comprising: applying a multistage radiation-curable and moisture-curing melt onto an article surface; and irradiating the melt layer to initiate a cure (Abstract; [0013] – [0015]). The melt is a reactive melt that is obtained by reacting inter alia one or more polyisocyanates with at least one polyol ([0032] – [0037]).
Ehrmann discloses that the polyisocyanates may include e.g. 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI) [methylenediphenyl diisocyanate], dicyclohexyl-methane diisocyanate [methylene-bis-(4-isocyanatocyclohexane)], 2,6-tolylene diisocyanate [toluene diisocyanate], 1-isocyanato-3-isocyanatomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexane [3-isocyanatomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexyl isocyanate], 1,6-hexane diisocyanate (HDI) [hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate, hexane diisocyanate] ([0049] – [0051]).
The polyol may be e.g. polyether polyols derived from ethylene oxides with water or ethylene glycol [polyethylene oxide],propylene oxide with water, propylene 1,2-glycol or 1,3-glycol [polypropylene oxide] ([0045], [0050]); or polyesters derived from ethylene glycol [polyethylene glycol] or propane-1,2-diol [polypropylene glycol] ([0042]).
Particularly preferred are mixtures of polyethylene oxides/polypropylene oxides with 1,6-hexane diisocyanate or dicyclohexyl-methane diisocyanate ([0050]). Ehrmann discloses that the melt is preferably solvent-free and that the reactive melt allows for initial strength/curing with irradiation while allowing further treatment, have a given desired residual elasticity ([0015], [0023]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elaborated and/or modified the method of Fuchs in view of Fandrey, Becker-Weimann and optionally Zhao to have the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt being produced from the one or more isocyanate-reactive polymers selected from the group comprising the recited isocyanate-reactive polymers and the one or more polyisocyanates selected from the group comprising the recited one or more polyisocyanates because Ehrmann discloses that such isocyanate-reactive polymers and polyisocyanates are known to be suitable for the creation of a radiation-curable reactive hot-melt with a reasonable expectation of success and because Ehrmann teaches that such components create partially-cured and fully-cured coatings that can be further treated and have desired levels of elasticity.
Fuchs in view of Fandrey does not expressly teach that a decorative layer is produced before the application of the polyurethane-based reactive hot-melt layer as recited in parent claim 1 imported to present claims 9, 29.
Becker-Weimann discloses that prior to application of the reactive hotmelt, a decorative foil or a printed decoration can be laminated to a substrate in order to provide a decorative effect such as a decorative wood effect or a decorative stone effect ([0027], [0029] – [0030], [0057]).
Fandrey discloses that lacquer layers/paint layers can be printed onto surfaces by digital printing, and that digital printing is a conventional method to coat or print (page 4 2nd paragraph). Becker-Weimann likewise disclose that digital printing heads may be used to directly apply lacquer ([0006], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fuchs in view of Fandrey by producing/applying a decorative layer because such a layer extends the aesthetic possibilities and looks possible by the practice of the method of Fuchs in view of Fandrey, as taught by Becker-Weimann.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fuchs in view of Fandrey by producing/applying a decorative layer because such a layer extends the aesthetic possibilities and looks possible by the practice of the method of Fuchs in view of Fandrey, as taught by Becker-Weimann.
Regarding claim 8:
In an alternate embodiment, Fuchs discloses applying the adhesive backing layer followed by applying a primer layer, which may also read upon the claimed step of applying primer; to enhance adhesion between the adhesive layer and the polyurethane-based polymer layer ([0036]).
Claim(s) 13, 33, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa in view of Buehring as applied to claims 1, 4 – 6, 12 – 15, 18 – 21, 34 – 35 above, and further in view of Dove et al. WO2005/108114 A2 (hereafter “Dove”).
Regarding claim 13:
Kanagawa in view of Buehring does not expressly teach that the support material has a thickness of from 30 micrometers to 400 micrometers.
In analogous art, Dove is directed to preparation of decorated substrates comprising a step of applying a radiation-curable coating composition and/or radiation-permeable film (Abstract). Dove discloses that the coating composition may be urethane-based (page 19 lines 5 – 20). The coating composition may be disposed on a radiation-permeable film or onto a resultant substrate [both the radiation permeable film and resultant substrate can alternatively correspond to support material] (page 7 line 25 – page 8 line 10). Dove further discloses that the thickness of the substrate may be thicker or thinner depending on the desired end result product (e.g carton board vs paper packaging, decorated polymer substrates) (page 7 lines 1 – 10); and that the radiation-permeable film may be of a sufficient thickness that remains sufficiently transparent to allow transmission of radiation used to cure coatings disposed on the radiation-permeable film (page 14 lines 15 – 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kanagawa in view of Buehring as a matter of routine experimentation to optimize end result aesthetics and/or allow for full curing of radiation-curable compositions that rely on UV radiation-curing. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 33, 36:
Kanagawa in view of Buehring does not expressly teach that the filler is an abrasion-resistant filler.
Dove further discloses that the coating composition may be urethane-based (page 19 lines 5 – 20). The coating compositions may include one or more fillers known in the art such as barium sulphate, calcium sulphate, calcium carbonate, silica [silicon dioxide] or silicates, and/or aluminum oxides [including corundum, which is a form of aluminum oxide2; metal oxide, inorganic materials and therefore abrasion-resistant fillers3] (page 29 lines 5 – 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized abrasion-resistant fillers such as silica or aluminum oxides as the filler in the prior art invention of Fuchs in view of Fandry because as taught by Dove, the use of such abrasion-resistant fillers is known to be suitable for the purpose of fillers in polyurethane layers. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa in view of Buehring as applied to claims 1, 4 – 6, 12 – 15, 18 – 21, 34 – 35 above, and further in view of Fandrey and Hannig US 20190283490 A1 (hereinafter “Hannig”).
Regarding claim 30:
Kanagawa discloses that an intermediate layer can be disposed upon the surface skin layer ([0031]) and that an uneven pattern may be embossed onto the surface skin layer ([0138]).
Kanagawa in view of Buehring does not expressly teach printing a decoration – which is matched to the embossed structure – after application of the polyurethane layer and before the application of lacquer layers.
Fandrey discloses that lacquer layers/paint layers can be printed onto the surfaces of a reactive hot melt by digital printing, and that digital printing is a conventional method to coat or print (page 4 2nd paragraph)
In analogous art, Hannig is directed to decorated, surface-structured wall or floor panels and methods for manufacturing the same (Abstract). Hannig discloses that it is known within the prior art to provide surface structures/textures onto panels in order to achieve haptic effects ([0008]). Hannig discloses a method of forming a fiber cement sheet comprising: providing a carrier ([0014], claim 11, [0043]); applying a primer of e.g. urethane or a urethane acrylate and optionally a polyurethane undercoat onto the carrier [corresponding to the hot melt polyurethane layer] ([0043] – [0044]); printing a decorative layer made from a radiation-curable paint and/or ink [a type of lacquer] onto the primer or polyurethane undercoat ([0045], [0047]); applying a radiation curable varnish or a hot melt on the decorative coating; applying an embossable plastic film onto the radiation curable varnish/hot melt layer (Abstract; [0056], [0058], [0062]); and embossing the embossable plastic film ([0062]). Hannig discloses that the structuring of the plastic film is carried out in congruence [matching] of the decorative image in order to haptically support the realistic appearance of the decoration ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kanagawa in view of Buehring by printing a decorative ink/lacquer layer onto the polyurethane-based hot melt layer that would match with either an embossing of the adhesion layer because Fandrey teaches that digital printing onto hot melt layers is conventional within the art, Kanagawa teaches that intermediate layers may be disposed between the surface skin layer and the substrate layer, and Hannig teaches that the addition of a decorative layer allows for the appearance and haptics of the resultant composite film can match and feel like those of desired natural materials such as wood ([0004], [0007], [0021]).
Claim(s) 23, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa in view of Buehring as applied to claims 1, 4 – 6, 12 – 15, 18 – 21, 34 – 35 above, and further in view of Fandrey
Regarding claims 23, 28:
Kanagawa in view of Buehring does not expressly teach the application of a lacquer that is a UV-curing/ UV-curable lacquer, water-based lacquer or both UV-curing and water-based lacquer.
Fandry discloses that adhesion promoters can include a polyurethane-based layer that is used to adhere to subsequently applied lacquer layers (page 3 “applying a primer layer containing … thickness of less than 20 microns”). Fandry discloses that lacquers may be applied as clear white or colored lacquers that are preferably UV-curing paints (page 4 3rd – 4th paragraph, page 5 Examples).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the additional polymer layers of Fuchs or apply as a polymer layer a layer of UV-curing lacquer because Fandry teaches that such layers are suitable and adhesive to polyurethane based polymer layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kanagawa.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi et al. US20210155828 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 Ehrmann is the PG-Publication of later-issued US 8153264 B2, which is cited by Becker-Weimann at [0022].
2 See Hannig US 20190283490 A1 pararaphs [0061] and [0097], which indicate corundum is a known alumina.
3 See page 9 line 30 – page 10 line 10 of the instant specification that characterizes abrasion resistant fillers as inorganic filler components, such as silicon dioxide.