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 1/28/2026 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Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-7 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.
Claim 4 recites “a printing layer on a base layer, the printing layer comprising a laser pattern”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant or encompassed by the phrases “a printing layer” and “a laser pattern”. Regarding the first phrase, the specification also recites “the printing layer”; but does not describe how the layer is a “printing” layer. The specification states “the printing layer 40 may be formed by surface-treating the base layer 10 sequentially coated with the binder layer 20 and the coating layer 30” [0050], wherein the binder and coating layers comprise curable coating materials [0070-0084]. The specification does not describe either the binder layer or the coating layer as being “printed” and only refers to a “printing layer” after the base and coating layers are heat-treated [0082-0083; 0109; Table 1]. It is unclear if “printing” refers to the method used to apply a layer (e.g., the binder and/or coating layers), which is not explicitly described in the specification, or if the term has a different intended meaning (e.g., the term refers to any layer with a laser pattern). Regarding the second phrase of “a laser pattern”, the specification states “The printing layer 40 may include light sources, such as light emitting panels. In the printing layer 40, the light sources may be arranged to form the laser pattern 41” [0049]; however, the specification further states “the printing layer 40 may be formed by surface-treating the base layer 10, which is sequentially coated with a binder layer 20 and the coating layer 30, so as to form the laser pattern 41 on the base layer 10” [0050], which indicates the binder layer and coating layer form the laser pattern. Still further, the specification describes a “laser patterning treatment” [0086; 0109; Table 1]. It is unclear if “a laser pattern” refers to light emitting panels embedded in a layer, or if the term refers to a pattern formed by a process using a laser. For purposes of examination, the phrase “a printing layer on a base layer, the printing layer comprising a laser pattern” has been interpreted broadly to encompass any of: (i) a layer meeting the product-by-process requirements of a “printed” layer (i.e., a layer formed by printing process) or (ii) a layer having a “laser pattern”, wherein in (ii) the pattern encompasses any of: (a) a pattern meeting the product-by-process requirements of a pattern formed by a laser or (b) a light emitting source in a pattern inside the printing layer. Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites “the primer layer comprising a primer coating composition comprising” CPO, a modified polyester, and a hydrocarbon-based solvent. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim encompasses an article wherein the primer layer is “wet” (i.e., still contains solvent, as during a wet-on-wet process before final curing) or dry (i.e., the layer no longer contains solvent and the solvent feature refers to a product-by-process limitation). Additionally, dependent claims 6 and 7 also recite “non-volatile (NV) content” of components of the primer layer is less than 100% (i.e., implying there is volatile content). Claims that depend from claim 4 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt et al. (US 2003/0229179).
Regarding claim 1:
Merritt discloses an adhesion promoter or primer comprising a chlorinated polyolefin (CPO) and an olefin-based block copolymer comprising at least one polyester block (i.e., a modified polyester) [abstract; 0002; 0007; 0011]. The primer further comprises hydrocarbon solvents [0051]. The CPO has a molecular weight of 2,000-150,000 g/mol, preferably 65,000-80,000 g/mol [0042]. In some embodiments, the primer comprises only the CPO and the copolymer as resinous “vehicle” components, wherein the amount of each component is at least 0.001% by weight or at least 3% by weight [0049; 0053]. The amount of solvent is 0.01-99% by weight of the composition [0058].
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the CPO, the copolymer comprising a polyester block, and solvent, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed ranges, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Regarding claims 2:
As discussed above, Merritt teaches an amount of CPO is at least 0.001% by weight of the resinous (i.e., non-volatile) components [0053]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mount of non-volatiles of amounts of the CPO, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt et al. (US 2003/0229179) in view of Haruta et al. (US 2003/0039839).
Regarding claim 3:
Merritt discloses an adhesion promoter or primer as discussed above. Merritt teaches an amount of olefin-based block copolymer comprising at least one polyester block (i.e., a modified polyester) is at least 0.001% by weight of the resinous (i.e., non-volatile) components [0053]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mount of non-volatiles of amounts of the copolymer comprising a polyester block, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Merritt is silent with regard to the glass transition temperature of the copolymer.
One skilled in the art would have recognized the importance of adjusting this property to be within desired limits. For example, Haruta discloses a decorative film comprising a laminate comprising a polyolefin base film layer and a primer layer thereon [abstract; 0002; 0010-0014]. Haruta teaches it was known that the glass transition temperature of the primer affects its adhesiveness and crack resistance on folding (i.e., hardness), and so can be set within the range of 20-70°C [0018; 0021].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the glass transition temperature of Merritt’s copolymer, including over values within the claimed range, to adjust the overall glass transition temperature of the primer to provide the desired adhesiveness, hardness, etc. for a given end use.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt et al. (US 2003/0229179) in view of Kim (KR 2008-0048630).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of KR‘630 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 4:
Merritt discloses an adhesion promoter or primer comprising a chlorinated polyolefin (CPO) and an olefin-based block copolymer comprising at least one polyester block (i.e., a modified polyester) [abstract; 0002; 0007; 0011]. The primer further comprises hydrocarbon solvents [0051]. The CPO has a molecular weight of 2,000-150,000 g/mol, preferably 65,000-80,000 g/mol [0042]. In some embodiments, the primer comprises only the CPO and the copolymer as resinous “vehicle” components, wherein the amount of each component is at least 0.001% by weight or at least 3% by weight [0049; 0053]. The amount of solvent is 0.01-99% by weight of the composition [0058].
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the CPO, the copolymer comprising a polyester block, and solvent, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed ranges, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Merritt further discloses applying the primer to a substrate (base layer) and subsequently applying topcoats, including a clearcoat [0003; 0011; 0049; 0052; 0062; 0065].
Merritt is silent with regard to a printing layer comprising a laser pattern. (Also see the rejections under 35 USC 112 above.)
The use of a laser to provide a pattern was known in the art. For example, Kim discloses a button for an automobile [abstract; 13-14]. The button is formed by coating a polycarbonate substrate with a pad printing layer followed by a step of laser cutting the pad printing layer to provide a symbol or character (i.e., pattern) on the button [21, 26, 35].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a printing layer comprising a laser pattern on Merritt’s substrate to provide a symbol or design on the component as known in the art.
Regarding claim 5:
Merritt teaches polycarbonate substrates [0067].
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Merritt teaches an amount of CPO is at least 0.001% by weight of the resinous (i.e., non-volatile) components [0053]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mount of non-volatiles of amounts of the CPO, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt et al. (US 2003/0229179) in view of Kim (KR 2008-0048630) as applied above, and further in view of Haruta et al. (US 2003/0039839).
Regarding claim 7:
Merritt discloses an adhesion promoter or primer as discussed above. Merritt teaches an amount of olefin-based block copolymer comprising at least one polyester block (i.e., a modified polyester) is at least 0.001% by weight of the resinous (i.e., non-volatile) components [0053]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mount of non-volatiles of amounts of the copolymer comprising a polyester block, including over amounts falling within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired combination of properties (e.g., adhesion and viscosity) for a given end use.
Merritt is silent with regard to the glass transition temperature of the copolymer.
One skilled in the art would have recognized the importance of adjusting this property to be within desired limits. For example, Haruta discloses a decorative film comprising a laminate comprising a polyolefin base film layer and a primer layer thereon [abstract; 0002; 0010-0014]. Haruta teaches it was known that the glass transition temperature of the primer affects its adhesiveness and crack resistance on folding (i.e., hardness), and so can be set within the range of 20-70°C [0018; 0021].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the glass transition temperature of Merritt’s copolymer, including over values within the claimed range, to adjust the overall glass transition temperature of the primer to provide the desired adhesiveness, hardness, etc. for a given end use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787