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 of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 8/18/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has made necessary corrections to the IDS submitted 4/1/25.
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 1-7 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.
Claims 1-7 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the print layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected because it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention whether the dose of electron beam is an additional dose or simply one of the doses listed in claim 1.
For examination purposes, it will be considered the optional first dose of electron radiation applied to the first layer.
Claim 4 is rejected because it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention what is meant by the phrase “a group of additives developed on the bases of micronised waxes based on very sensitive polyethylenes with the addition of propoxylated glycerol triacrylate.” Furthermore, the specification fails to provide a definition or examples that would further explain the phrase.
In addition, the term “very sensitive” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very sensitive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nowak et al (WO 2020/009592 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nowak teaches a method of producing a multilayer matte varnished (e.g., coated) surface on a carrier, refined on machines for the application of electron or UV light curable varnish (e.g., coatings), where the carrier is coated with a layer of varnish (e.g., coating) containing an additive increasing the adhesion of varnish between layers, and in the coating system applying varnish, characterized in that the carrier is coated at least two layers of varnish (e.g., coatings), where two layers are made of electron curable varnishes (e.g., coatings) that contain an additive for increasing adhesion between the layers, the layer applied first, counting from the carrier side, contains an additive increasing adhesion between the layers and is subjected irradiated by an excimer lamp and then pre-polymerization with electron radiation (e.g., 5 kGy), then after applying the second layer (5) also containing an additive increasing adhesion between the layers, the combined layers are cured by electron radiation or UV light (page 3-5, example 1).
The limitations “and if the layer (4) applied first counting from the carrier side, is only pre- polymerized by electron radiation or UV light, then after applying the second layer (5), which then contains an additive increasing adhesion between the layers, it is irradiate by an excimer lamp and then the combined layers are cured by electron radiation or UV light” appear to be optional limitations and not taught or otherwise suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Nowak teaches a species characterized in that the print layer is applied directly to the carrier prior to the application of the electron or UV curable layers (example 1, page 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Nowak teaches an additive improving the bond strength of the coating is selected from a group of additives developed on the bases of micronised waxes based on very sensitive polyethylenes with the addition of propoxylated glycerol triacrylate (page 3).
Regarding claim 6, Nowak teaches the whole surface is then exposed to an electron beam with a dose of minimum 35 kGy (e.g., 40kGy in order to complete the polymerisation process of all coating layers (i.e., in order to fully cure the electron curable varnish layers, they are irradiated with an electron beam with a dose from 30 to 60 kGy) (page 3-5, example 1). 35 kGy & 40 kGy lie within and therefore anticipate the range of the instant claims.
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowak.
Regarding claim 3, Nowak teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention to use matting agents to impart a matte finish on product such as furniture in electron beam varnishes or coatings (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use matting agents in either of the varnish or coating layers to aid in providing the cured layers with a matte finish (i.e., the layer which is or is not irradiated by the excimer lamps made of an electron curable varnish containing the addition of matting agents).
Regarding claim 7, Nowak teaches the whole surface is then exposed to an electron beam with a dose of minimum 35 kGy (i.e., or to equivalent UV radiation in order to complete the polymerisation process (i.e., cure) of all coating layers (page 3). This range substantially overlaps 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 Nowak, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Conclusion
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