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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 3, Claims 12-14, in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 1-2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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.
Claims 12-14 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 Claim 12, the phrase "-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 13-14 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14, “alloys comprising the metals” is indefinite due to an antecedent basis issue of “metals”, as the claim recites only “a metal”. The limitation should be reworded to “alloys thereof”.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (WO 2017/221801 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakamura teaches a multilayer article comprising a backing layer, an upper layer, and a bonding layer interposed between the backing layer and the upper layer. (Page 3). Nakamura teaches the backing layer comprises polyolefin or polyester, a thermoplastic polymer, and the upper layer comprises a metal. (Page 3). Nakamura teaches the bonding layer/film can comprise a modified polyolefin resin (polyolefin), a polyolefin (compatibilizer), and an amino resin. (Claim 1 of Nakamura). Nakamura teaches the amount of polyolefin (compatibilizer) can range from 0.1 to 20%, the amino resin can range from approximately 0.5 to 5%, and the modified polyolefin can be the remainder (Claim 1 of Nakamura; Page 2-4). Nakamura does not require additional filler. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakamura teaches the thermoplastic polymer can be polyethylene or polypropylene. (Page 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Nakamura teaches the upper layer can be aluminum. (Page 5).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights