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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “configured to protect” and “configured to receive one or more electrical components” in claims 26, 28, and 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22 – 31, 33, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa (US 2009/0075039, “Ould Bougrissa”) in view of Stokes et al. (US 2008/0020200, “Stokes”) in view of Brewster et al. (US 2012/0048487, “Brewster”).
Regarding claim 22, Ould Bougrissa teaches a decorative structure comprising a translucent layer comprising a plurality of natural fibers impregnated by a thermoplastic resin and an adjacent core layer ([0001] – [0005], [0075], [0090] – [0095], Fig. 1, wherein a portion of the laminate comprises a surface covering 3, a core layer 1 and a decorated paper layer 2). Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the structure of the fiber layer of the veneer, however, in the same field of endeavor of veneer structures (Stokes, [0001] – [0005]), Stokes teaches a typical veneer structure and teaches that a useful fiber structure for a veneer may have an areal weight on the range of from 10 to 200 gsm ([0061]). Stokes additionally teaches a translucent laminate comprising a layer comprising natural fibers ([0053]). Stokes additionally teaches the binder may include alkenes and latex polymers (that is, olefins derived from natural sources which polymerize to form polyolefins, [0007], [0048]). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the fiber layers of Stokes for that of Ould Bougrissa for the benefit of its aesthetically pleasing appearance, relatively low cost, and good structural support (e.g., [0017] – [0019], [0061]). Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach that the laminate has a display, however in the same field of endeavor of wall coverings ([0001] – [0005]), Brewster teaches that it is known to include in a core layer a layer that displays images ([0050]) and that doing so may helpfully provide a laminate with decoration ([0050]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have included such a layer in the laminate of Ould Bougrissa in order to provide it with improved aesthetics or decorations ([0034]).
Regarding claims 23 – 25, Ould Bougrissa additionally teaches the laminate may include a reinforcing backing layer (see, e.g., Fig. 2, layers II, which each include core layer 1, [0104], cellulosic material [0048], [0070], wherein the core layers are not described as woven and thus may be nonwoven).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Ould Bougrissa additionally teaches the inclusion of a transparent surface coat layer ([0032], [0003], Fig. 1, transparent protective covering 3).
Regarding claims 27 and 29, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the makeup of the protective layer, however Brewster teaches such layers may conventionally be made of polymeric materials that may be considered polyolefins (e.g., Brewster [0036]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have made a protective film out of similar (Brewster, [0036], [0082]).
Regarding claim 30, Ould Bougrissa (Stokes) additionally teaches the binder may include alkenes (that is, olefins which polymerize to form polyolefins, Stokes, [0048], [0007]).
Regarding claims 31 and 33, Ould Bougrissa (Stokes) additionally teaches that the fibers may be made out of, for example, flax and may be nonwoven (Stokes, [0053]).
Regarding claim 42, Ould Bougrissa additionally teaches the laminate may be used in, among other things, building decoration or furnishings ([0068]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa in view of Stokes in view of Brewster as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Raghavendran et al. (US 2009/0155522, “Raghavendran”).
Regarding claim 32, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach that the fiber layers are made of unidirectionally aligned fibers, but in the same field of endeavor of fibrous laminates for use in automotive applications ([0001] – [0005]), Raghavendran teaches the inclusion of unidirectional fibrous layers may improve strength and thus their inclusion in the laminate of Ould Bougrissa would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (Raghavendran, [0004], [0005]).
Claim(s) 34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa in view of Stokes in view of Brewster as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Moncrieff (US 2012/0314380, “Moncrieff”).
Regarding claim 34, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a touch interface, however, in the same field of endeavor of tools or devices having an aesthetic laminate structure laminated thereon ([0005], including decorative plastic films and circuitry), Moncrieff teaches that it is known to include a touch screen (e.g., user-input device typically having a display screen [0008], [0018], [0019]) in such devices in order to allow the user to easily control the device ([0018], [0019], [0042]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a touch screen in order to permit a user to control a device ([0018], [0019], [0042]).
Regarding claim 38, modified Ould Bougrissa additionally teaches that elements may be included in order to block light to protect underlying components (Moncrieff, [0069]).
Claim(s) 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa in view of Stokes in view of Brewster as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Hung (US 2009/0139973, “Hung”).
Regarding claims 35-37, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the core layer includes a plurality of channels. The Examiner notes that the field of endeavor of laminates for use in furniture, storage containers, utensils, tools, building panels, displays, vehicles, sporting equipment and the like (see present specification at [0002]) is very broad and thus the ordinarily skilled artisan would have familiarized him or herself with a wide range of applications for such decorative laminates. In the same field of endeavor of decorative automotive application including wood veneers for use therein ([0024]), Hung teaches a heating structure for use in a vehicle and comprising a wood veneer or other decorative material ([0024], [0003] – [0010]) and wherein the heating structure comprises a series of channels through which hot or cool air flows (Fig. 4, [0033]) and through which run circuitry (e.g., Fig. 4, heating elements [0030]). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have implemented the veneer of modified Ould Bougrissa in the heating structure of Hung for the benefit of providing it with a suitable decorative veneer having good strength and which is otherwise untaught by Hung (see generally Hung, [0003] – [0010], [0024], [0029] – [0035]; and see Ould Bougrissa [0003] – [0010]).
Claim(s) 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa in view of Stokes in view of Brewster as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Moncrieff in view of Takimoto et al. (US 2012/0135187, “Takimoto”)
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an electronic display However, in the same field of endeavor of tools or devices having an aesthetic laminate structure laminated thereon ([0005], including decorative plastic films and circuitry), Moncrieff teaches that it is known to include a touch screen (e.g., user-input device typically having a display screen [0008], [0018], [0019]) in such devices in order to allow the user to easily control the device ([0018], [0019], [0042]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a touch screen in order to permit a user to control a device ([0018], [0019], [0042]). While Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a battery component in its decorative laminate construction. However, the inclusion of a decorative laminate, such as the one described above by modified Ould Bougrissa, on a battery-containing element would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner notes that the field of endeavor of laminates for use in furniture, storage containers, utensils, tools, building panels, displays, vehicles, sporting equipment and the like (see present specification at [0002]) is very broad and thus the ordinarily skilled artisan would have familiarized him or herself with a wide range of applications for such decorative laminates, including in devices containing batteries (e.g., such as those containing display devices). Takimoto teaches that it is known, for example, to include battery components in display devices ([0001], [0059]) and the inclusion of a battery with a display in order to power the display would have therefore been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing (e.g., Takimoto, [0001] – [0004]).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould Bougrissa in view of Stokes in view of Brewster as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Schuren et al. (US 2002/0150749, “Schuren”).
Regarding claim 41, Ould Bougrissa fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a fire retardant component in the laminate. However, in the same field of endeavor of laminated, impregnated fiber sheets (e.g., [0002] – [0006]), Schuren teaches to include such components in laminate fiber-containing structures in order to use the laminate structure in settings where it is necessary to comply with fire standards (Schuren, e.g., building codes and the like, [0002], [0011], [0005]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have included such a component in the laminate of Ould Bougrissa in order to use the laminate structure in settings where it is necessary to comply with fire standards (e.g., building codes and the like, [0002], [0011], [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782