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 Species C, embodied in Claims 1-8in the reply filed on 1/9/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s argue that the claims include adhesive surface of a substrate in the claims requires that Species A is part and parcel of all other Species. The examiner disagrees and notes that claimed adhesive surface of a substrate does not indicate that the Species A is necessitated for all species, since it is clear that the other species include what can reasonably be considered an adhesive surface and therefore such is generic to all embodiments, but not generic to Species A.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clara Lawrence, 136 | Mica Flake Sprinkle Resin Tray, online Oct 27, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3XkON5p8HY with Gina DeLuca, (424) TESTING ColourArte Bling It Moon Rock Mica Flakes - Fluid Acrylic Paint Pouring - Fluid Art, online June 26, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjTGzevQwIg alone or with US Patent 1941212 by Johnson et al.
Claim 1: Lawrence discloses a method of fabricating a sheet of a crystalline material, the method comprising: providing Mica flakes;
sorting the plurality of crystalline elements into a first size, a second size and a third size (see plate with varying sizes, sorting occurs based on utilization by placement of largest mica flakes, i.e. first size, where smallest second and third size remain for sprinkling);
placing said first size crystalline elements of the plurality of crystalline elements along an adhesive surface of a substrate (see e.g. Minute 1:08 see, weld bond resin applied)
PNG
media_image1.png
364
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
broadcasting the second and third sizes of the remaining crystalline elements of the plurality of crystalline elements against the adhesive surface between the placed first size (Minute 1:58 to Minute 2:03)
PNG
media_image2.png
363
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for the sorting, the prior art discloses using larger flakes for placement and smaller flakes for sprinkling/broadcasting between the larger flakes and therefore at the very least, it would have been obvious to have modified Lawrence to use sort the particle for ease of use with a reasonable expectation of predictable results.
Lawrence discloses using flat mica flakes; however, fails to explicitly disclose the splitting as claimed. Deluca, which discloses the splitting the mica flakes along the crystallographic structural planes into a plurality of crystalline elements (see e.g. minute 13:19 et sequence) as it relates to dividing the mica into individual flakes by splitting along the plane. Deluca discloses after splitting applying the large individual flakes to the substrate (see e.g. 16:22).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
358
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, taking the reference collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have modified Lawrence to split the mica flakes along the crystallographic structural planes into a plurality of crystalline elements as suggested by DeLuca, prior to applying to the substrate, as DeLuca discloses such would provide flakes for application to the substrate for a mica decorated substrate.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Johnson which disclose the sorting of the mica flakes into various classifications into varying grades of fineness and therefore it would have been obvious to include a sorting of the mica to achieve the varying grades of fineness desired by Lawrence.
Claim 2: Lawrence discloses pressing/compressing the placed and broadcast mica flakes under a compression; however, does not detail the explicit compression range. The amount of compression would be recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the particles attachment to the substrate and it would have been obvious through routine experimentation to determine the optimum compression through routine experimentation to provide the desired flake attachment.
PNG
media_image5.png
368
655
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Lawrence discloses compression flattens the placed and broadcasted crystalline elements so that adjacent crystalline elements overlap each other.
PNG
media_image5.png
368
655
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Lawrence discloses the adhesive surface is formed by applying a resin over the substrate (see Video 0.53)
PNG
media_image6.png
357
641
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The amount of adhesive resin is not specifically disclosed; however, the amount is a result effective variable directly affecting the adhesion, too little and no adhesion will exist and too much will provide insufficient base for the mica flakes (i.e. they will sink into the resin) or be uneconomical as more adhesive material will not add additional adhesion and therefore determination of the optimum adhesive resin amount would have been obvious through routine experimentation.
Claim 7: Lawrence discloses the crystalline material comprises mica (title).
Claim 8: Lawrence discloses shaking the substrate to displace a portion of the plurality of crystalline elements not adhered to the adhesive surface (see Video Minute 2:23-2:26).
PNG
media_image7.png
375
648
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence, DeLuca, and Johnson et al. taking with JP 3902961, hereinafter JP 961
Lawrence, DeLuca, and Johnson et al. discloses all that is taught above and Lawrence and DeLuca individually disclose applying the mica flakes to substrate, including e.g. what appears to be canvas, see DeLuca; however, fails to disclose a vinyl substrate with the thickness as claimed. JP 961 discloses a method for forming a decorative panel by depositing colored flakes onto a web by applying two different flakes onto the surface of a web by sprinkling flakes thereon to form a decorative surface (similar to that of both Lawrence and DeLuca who deposit flakes onto a substrate for decoration) and JP 961 discloses using a vinyl sheet with a thickness as claimed and depositing the flakes thereon an passing through nip rollers (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0024 related to vinyl films, 0025 related to thickness, “ a thickness of at least about 0.25 mil (6.4 μm) is sufficient, and a thickness of up to about 15 mil (381 μm)”). Therefore taking the references collectively, each of which is related to forming a decorative article, it would have been obvious to have deposited the mica onto a vinyl sheet as JP 961 discloses that the vinyl sheet is a known sheet for decoration. The thickness of the film as taught by JP 961 overlaps the range as claimed and thus makes obvious the claim as drafted.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence, DeLuca, Johnson et al. and JP 961 as applied above with respect to claim 6 and further with US Patent 5034269 by Wheeler
Lawrence, DeLuca, Johnson et al. and JP 961 discloses and makes obvious all that is taught above and JP 961 discloses applying the flakes to the film and thereafter providing through a nip roller (see Figure 3 and accompanying text); however, fails to disclose the protective covering as claimed. Wheeler discloses applying a decorative coating onto a sheet material and supplying through nip rollers and additionally discloses applying a protective covering at the time of the nip rollers to cover the decorative coating (see Figure 1 and accompanying text) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective coating as suggested by Wheeler with a reasonable expectation of predictable results in the formation of the decorative sheet that provides a protective covering during pressure rolling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718