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 .
This Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s argument received on 11/12/2025, in response to the Non-Final Action mailed on 8/12/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 21 – 34) in the reply filed on 07/17/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 21 -27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDVOLD et al. (WO 00/30854, as provided by Applicant’s) in view of Kubota (US 2005/0089671 A1).
Regarding claim 21 -27, LINDVOLD et al. teach an apparatus for patterning on polymer articles (film), comprising: an application station on the polymer article (sheet), providing desired material (lacquer, glue, molding material) on the sheet (plastic sheet) and then imprinting pattern on the sheet with the material via application of pressure (see Fig 1, item 10, 23, 28, 20, 25; page 5 to page 12 lines 20). LINDVOLD et al. further teach drying/post-curing downstream of said pattern imprinting station (see pages 5 to page 12 lines 20); wherein conveying means are provided driven along a common advancing to transfer said articles from one station to another station (see Fig 1).
However, LINDVOLD et al. fail to explicitly teach providing vapors/steam of polymer softening substance.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to imprinting on a sheet, Kubota teach shaping a sheet and method of producing a pattern on the sheet, including heating resin layer (2) to the melting point by using heating steam, a heating medium or an infrared heater, and embossing using a die on the release layer (10) to form transfer pattern (3) (see [0029], Fig. 2A). The sheet taught by Kubota as claimed can be produced via any process not limited to additive manufacturing as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus taught by LINDVOLD et al. for forming pattern with further application of steam/vapor for softening material on a sheet, as taught by Kubota for the purpose of efficiently embossing/patterning via embossing roll on a continuous sheet of material. Furthermore, the examiner takes Official Notice, according to MPEP section 2144.03 (Reliance on Common Knowledge in the Art or "Well-Known"), the embossing roller are known to be made of rigid or flexible material as claimed, therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to use either rigid or flexible material based on the type of material being embossed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim(s) 21 -27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDVOLD et al. (WO 00/30854, as provided by Applicant’s) in view of Kubota (US 2005/0089671 A1), the applicant argued that Lindvold and Kubota does not render the claim subject matter obvious. It is pointed out that Kubota describes fundamentally different softening mechanism than those defined in claim 21. Applicant argued that Lindvold teaches to apply and shape a separate material layer (lacquer or glue) on a medium, followed by stabilizing/curing. Lindvold does not trach softening the underlying article material. Applicant then points out that claim 21 is directed to an apparatus comprising a pattern imprinting station for imprinting a pattern directly on articles made by additive manufacturing. The printing mechanism relies on softening of the polymer surface with a polymer softening substance and applying pressure to transfer a desired pattern on the polymer article surface. Applicant then argues that claimed invention pertains to chemical softening utilizing vapors of an organic solvent such as acetone or methylethylketone, which chemically interact with the polymer cellulose acetate.
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, are not found persuasive. Claim 21 is broad as such all it requires is an apparatus for forming patterns via softening and transferring the pattern. Applicant appears to argue specific materials “chemical softening utilizing vapors of an organic solvent such as acetone or methylethylketone, which chemically interact with the polymer cellulose acetate.” However, claim 21 does not yet include these materials, and since the claim pertains to an apparatus, the process or material worked upon the apparatus is given little patentable weight. Regarding the process as claimed, the apparatus as claimed can be worked upon any manufactured object, such as additively manufactured parts that includes polymers. Claim 21 does not pertain to additive manufacture apparatus, thus similarly identified and rejected in the above rejection. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). In this case, the prior art, LINDVOLD et al. and Kubota teach all the claim elements, therefore, also capable of performing the claim function.
In the rejection applied, the Examiner showed that LINDVOLD et al. teach an apparatus for patterning on polymer articles (film), comprising: an application station on the polymer article (sheet), providing desired material (lacquer, glue, molding material) on the sheet (plastic sheet) and then imprinting pattern on the sheet with the material via application of pressure (see Fig 1, item 10, 23, 28, 20, 25; page 5 to page 12 lines 20). However, the Examiner noted above that LINDVOLD et al. fail to explicitly teach providing vapors/steam of polymer softening substance.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to imprinting on a sheet, Kubota teach shaping a sheet and method of producing a pattern on the sheet, including heating resin layer (2) to the melting point by using heating steam, a heating medium or an infrared heater, and embossing using a die on the release layer (10) to form transfer pattern (3) (see [0029], Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the apparatus taught by LINDVOLD et al. for forming pattern with further application of steam/vapor for softening material on a sheet, as taught by Kubota for the purpose of efficiently embossing/patterning via embossing roll on a continuous sheet of material. The Examiner notes that claim as written is pertaining to apparatus, however, argument pertains to processes performed, the combination specifically shows elements of the apparatus that is capable of the performing the claimed process, therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743