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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 02/13/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification has overcome the drawing objections with respect to reference number 4. However, Applicant’s reply fails to address the other drawing objection(s). Thus, the other remaining drawing objection(s) is/are maintained.
With respect to the specification objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Abstract has/have overcome the previous objection(s). However, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Abstract introduced new objections set forth below.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objection.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s) with the exception of claims 8 and 9. Applicant's amendment(s) fails to cure the deficiencies. Furthermore, Applicant's amendment(s) raise new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action and/or are not found persuasive.
With respect to Gladen, Applicant’s arguments against Gladen are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Gladen does not disclose/suggest the units or scale for hardness and that hardness can be defined with Shore A, Shore D or even Shore OO.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. While Gladen does not explicitly mentions the hardness Scale/units used, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand/recognize that Gladen implies Shore A scale because Shore A is the most common and suitable hardness scale used to measure the hardness of silicone rubber. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone_rubber. In the plastic shaping art, when Silicone rubber does not have the conventional Shore A hardness range, the reference discloses a specific composition/manufacturing and/or refers to as a specialized silicone rubber. In the art, Shore D is for hard materials (not silicone rubber unless explicitly specified in the reference) while Shore OO is for very soft materials (not silicone rubber unless explicitly specified in the reference). See Understanding the Shore Hardness of Silicone Rubber | NEWTOP. Since Gladen emphasizes the flexibility and functionally of the silicone rubber layer 14 and silent about the silicone rubber being a specialized/uncommon silicone rubber (e.g. silicone rubber softer than normal or silicone rubber harder than normal), it is unreasonable for a reader (Applicant) to understand that Gladen does not imply/suggest Shore A hardness. Examiner notes that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. See MPEP 2144.01. Last but not least, Applicant’s argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Applicant argues that Gladen does not disclose/suggest the thickness of the rubber layer.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Gladen explicitly discloses a thickness (1/32 to 1/16 inches: i.e., 794 microns to 1.6 mm which is within the claimed range) for the rubber core/layer (C2, L48-54). Furthermore, since Gladen explicitly discloses that the thickness of rubber core/layer is an optimizable result effective variable (C1, L34-53), Gladen obviates the claimed thickness range
Applicant argues that Gladen does not disclose/suggest that the embossable surface of the object is partially or totally covered with a polymer while admitting that Gladen only mentions a foil is used as for example a film of "Mylar" or cellophane carrier having a coating or pigment vacuum deposited.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. First, the argued limitation is optional. Furthermore, the “Mylar” (i.e., Polyester) foil 31 partially or totally covers the embossable surface 16 of the object A during hot stamping in the example shown in Fig. 1 (C2, L72-C3, L15, Fig. 1).
Applicant further argues that Gladen does not disclose specific polymers, and their presence appears to be optional in order to color the surface.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. "Mylar" is a polyester/PET and its presence is not optional in the example of Fig. 1 and coloring/coating is in addition to stamping the surface 16 of the part A (C2, L72-C3, L15, Fig. 1; See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylar). Part A in Figs. 1-2 is a plastic part, thus, presence of a polymer in the embossable surface is not optical as applicant alleges (C2, L59-C3, L26).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Okubo, Applicant argues that Okubo relates to an apparatus for producing a substrate sheet for optical recording media. The teaching of Okubo is therefore far from the technical field of the present technology.
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Under the BRI, the claim as currently written is not limited to “hot embossing” as Applicant alleges in his/her arguments. Examiner considers embossing of a polymer surface as the technical field of Applicant’s invention (See claim 1 and [0003] of Applicant’s published application). Okubo discloses embossing of a resin which is or becomes a polymer with a master die (3) comprising 3 relevant layers (Fig. 1 and accompanying text). Thus, Examiner considers Okubo to be in the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s claimed invention, and the rejection in view of Okubo is maintained. Last but not least, Applicant’s argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office action.
With respect to Lacey, Applicant argues that “Lacey relates to relates to impressing diffraction image on polymeric films, and thus differs from the present technology which is a method for hot embossing an object”. In addition, the quality and the uniformity of the embossing pattern results from the elevated temperature of the film during the process (see column 5, lines 41-48 of Lacey).
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Under the BRI, the claim as currently written is not limited to “hot embossing” as Applicant alleges in his/her arguments. Examiner considers embossing of a polymer surface as the technical field of Applicant’s invention (See claim 1 and [0003] of Applicant’s published application). Since Applicant admits that the impressing on polymeric films in Lacey is based on embossing at an elevated temperature, Applicant is implicitly admitting/describing that Lacey is directed to hot embossing polymer films. Thus, Examiner considers Lacey to be in the same field of endeavor (embossing or hot embossing of a polymer surface) as Applicant’s claimed invention and the rejection in view of Lacey is maintained.
With respect to Vedamuttu, Applicant argues that “Vedamuttu discloses a method for manufacturing optical data storage discs. The field of technology is thus far from the one of the present technology”. Further, according to the teaching of Vedamuttu, the pattern is of the order of micrometer (see column 2, lines 16-17 of Vedamuttu), when the present technology relates to patterns of nanometer scale.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Under the BRI, the claim as currently written is not limited to “hot embossing” as Applicant alleges in his/her arguments. Examiner considers embossing of a polymer surface as the technical field of Applicant’s invention (See claim 1 and [0003] of Applicant’s published application). Furthermore, since the method of Vedamuttu includes transferring a pattern to the disc 10 with a heated embossing shim 26 (claims 1 and 13) and the disc 10 is made from polycarbonate (C1, L38-45; C5, L25-27, Fig. 1), Examiner considers Vedamuttu to be in the same field of endeavor (embossing or hot embossing of a polymer surface) as Applicant’s claimed invention. In response to applicant's argument that the references/Vedamuttu fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., patterns of nanometer scale) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the rejections in view of Vedamuttu are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “primer” in claim 12, “metal or oxide layer” in claim 13, and “protective polymer” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract filed on 12/13/2026 is objected to because the abstract comprises implied phraseology such as “The present technology relates” and legal phraseology such as “said”. Furthermore, the abstract filed on 12/13/2026 describes a hot embossing method already known in the art (See previous and current prior art rejections). Last but not least, the abstract fails to recite Applicant’s alleged improvements over the prior art of record set forth in amended claim 1 and Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/13/2026. A correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-15 is/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 1 recites the limitations “for hot embossing” in the preamble and “a step of embossing” in the body which make the scope of the claim indefinite. Is Applicant claiming “embossing” or “hot embossing”? It appears that Applicant intends to claim hot embossing based on submitted arguments; however, the body of claim fails to limit the scope of the claim to hot embossing. Under the BRI, the claim as currently written is not limited to “hot embossing” as Applicant alleges in his/her arguments.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a metal selected from aluminium, nickel, magnesium, copper and lead or is an alloy selected from brass and bronze” which is indefinite because the lists of alternatives are not closed groups, and therefore, they are improper Markush groups. See MPEP §§ 2111.03 II, 2117, 2173.05(h). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --a metal selected from a group consisting of aluminium, nickel, magnesium, copper and lead or is an alloy selected from a group consisting of brass and bronze--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “made of silicone, polyurethane or elastomers” which is indefinite. The language does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because “elastomers” is a broad limitation and “silicone” or “polyurethane” is a narrow limitation that may fall within the broad limitation in the same claim. See MPEP § 2173.05 (c).
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the embossable surface comprising at least one polymer” and “the embossable surface being constituted or totally or partially covered with a polymer layer” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. Is the polymer in the first recitation same or different from polymer in the polymer layer of the second recitation? How many polymers are required? Based on Applicant’s disclosure, they are the same polymer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said polymers being selected from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyesters, polyamides (PA), and styrenic polymers” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “said polymers” in the claim. Additionally, the inconsistent use of singular and plural polymer(s) in the claim makes the scope of the claim unclear. Last but not least, the list of alternatives is not a closed group, and therefore, an improper Markush group. See MPEP §§ 2111.03 II, 2117, 2173.05(h). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --said polymers being selected from a group consisting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyesters, polyamides (PA), and styrenic polymers--.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a step of applying a polymer layer on the surface of the object before the step of hot embossing” which is indefinite. It unclear if the polymer layer of claim 4 is same or different from the polymer layer of claim 1. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, they appear to be the same polymer layer.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a material selected from aluminum, stainless steel, brass and steel” which is indefinite because it is an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. The list of alternatives is not a closed group. See MPEP §§ 2111.03 II, 2117, 2173.05(h). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --a metal selected from a group consisting of aluminum, stainless steel, brass and steel--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a plate made of aluminum, nickel, brass, or magnesium” which is indefinite. It is unclear how claim 9 further limits claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 4 and therefor including all the limitation thereof. Claim 12 also includes the recitation “a polymer layer”.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladen (US 3613570 – of record) alone or further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Mitsuyoshi (JP 2009073114A with English machine translation – attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Gladen discloses a method for hot embossing (hot stamping process) an object , wherein the method comprises a step of hot embossing an embossable surface of the object, the embossable surface comprising at least one polymer with a master plate (hot stamping a surface of a plastic part with a hot stamping die: Abstract, C3, L19-27, Claim 1),
said master plate comprising:
a support (10/10a: C1, L34 to C2, L17, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-2),
a plate (12/12a) including an embossing pattern (stamping surface 13/13a), wherein the plate has a thickness of between 50 µm and 1 mm (0.005 to 0.010 inches: i.e., 127 microns to 0.25 mm, Gladen discloses furthers discloses that the thickness of 12 is an optimizable parameter: C1, L41-58, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-2), and is made of a metal selected from aluminum and copper (claims 3-4),
a deformable material layer (14/14a) made of silicone (silicone rubber), wherein the layer has a hardness between 50 and 90 shore A (silicone rubber in the 50-80 durometer range; while Gladen does not explicitly state the hardness Scale used, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand/recognize that Gladen implies/suggests/obviates Shore A scale as this is the most common and reasonable hardness scale used to measure the hardness of silicone rubber: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone_rubber and response to argument above) and a thickness between 250 µm and 3 mm (1/32 to 1/16 inches: i.e., 794 microns to 1.6 mm, Gladen discloses furthers discloses that the thickness of 14 is an optimizable result effective variable), and wherein the layer is between the support and the plate comprising the embossing pattern (C1, L34-53, C2, L48-54, Claims 1 and 8, and Figs. 1-2),
the embossing step comprising bringing the plate of the master plate into contact with said embossable surface and the embossable surface being constituted by the at least one polymer making possible the hot embossing (C2, L59-70, Claim 1, Fig. 2) or the embossable surface (16) of the object (A) being at least partially covered with a polymer layer (Mylar foil 31) making it possible the hot embossing, said polymer layer being selected from polyesters (C2, L72-C3, L15, Fig. 1; wherein Mylar is a polyester: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylar).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Gladen explicitly discloses that his process is suitable for hot stamping plastic parts of all kinds (C3, L20-27; C2, L7-11), Gladen fails to explicitly mention that the plastic/polymer of the object is selected from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyesters, polyamides (PA), and styrenic polymers.
However, [0021] of Applicant’s published application admits that polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyesters, polyamides (PA), and styrenic polymers are known suitable and/or desirable hot embossable polymers in the art. See MPEP § 2129.
Since Gladen explicitly discloses that his process is suitable for hot stamping plastic parts of all kinds (C3, L20-27; C2, L7-11), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gladen in view of AAPA by using polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyesters, or polyamides (PA) as the plastic/polymer of the object and/or the embossable surface/cover of the object for the benefit(s) of using known suitable and/or desirable hot embossable polymers.
Alternatively, if Applicant still believes that the claimed hardness range is not disclosed/suggested by Gladen, then, in the same field of endeavor, hot press molding thermoplastic objects/plates with a stamper (i.e., hot embossing) and/or solving the problem of providing uniform pressure by providing a deformable intermediate layer, Mitsuyoshi teaches to use a silicone rubber layer (138) having a Shore hardness of 70A or more as a suitable deformable/silicone intermediate layer for yielding the benefit(s) of providing uniform pressure, preventing leakages, and/or improving molding accuracy.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gladen in view of Mitsuyoshi by using a silicone rubber layer having a hardness of 70 Shore A or withing the claimed Shore A hardness range as a suitable deformable/silicone intermediate layer for yielding the benefit(s) of providing uniform pressure, preventing leakages, and/or improving molding accuracy as suggested by Mitsuyoshi.
Regarding claim 4, Gladen further discloses a step of applying the polymer layer (applying Mylar foil 31) on the surface (16) of the object (A) before the step of hot embossing (hot stamping), said surface consisting of at least one portion of the outer face of the object (C2, L72 to C3, L23, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gladen further discloses that temperature is an optimizable result effective parameter with an upper limit of 500 °F which is 260 °C, wherein the temperature optimization depends on the material to be stamped for the benefit(s) of enhancing hot stamping of plastics and/or improving shaping results (C1, L61-65, C2, L40-45, claim 7).
[0037] and [0040] of Applicant’s published application admit that embossing temperature is a well-known optimizable result effective parameter in the art, wherein the temperature optimization depends on the material to be embossed and the desired embossing quality. See MPEP § 2129.
Since temperature is a well-known optimizable result effective parameter and Examiner did not find evidence of criticality for selecting the claimed temperature range, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of AAPA by performing the embossing step at a temperature within the claimed temperature range for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable result(s) of enhancing hot embossing of plastics and/or improving embossing results/quality as suggested/predicted by Gladen and AAPA.
Regarding claim 6, Gladen further discloses that pressure is an optimizable result effective parameter for the benefit(s) of enhancing hot stamping of plastics and/or improving shaping results (C3, L4-5, claim 1, C3, L16-22).
[0038] and [0040] of Applicant’s published application admit that embossing pressure is well-known optimizable result effective parameter in the art, wherein the pressure optimization depends on the material to be embossed and the desired embossing quality. See MPEP § 2129.
Since pressure is well-known optimizable result effective parameter and Examiner did not find evidence of criticality for selecting the claimed pressure range, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of AAPA by performing the embossing step at a pressure within the claimed range for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable result(s) of enhancing hot embossing of plastics and/or improving embossing results/quality as suggested/predicted by Gladen and AAPA.
Regarding claim 8, Gladen further discloses wherein the support (10) is made of a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum and steel (C1, L59; C2, L1).
Regarding claims 9, Gladen further discloses the plate (12/12a) including the embossing pattern (stamping surface 13/13a) is a plate made of aluminum (claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, Gladen further discloses/suggests wherein the embossing pattern (13/13a) of the plate is obtained by chemical reaction (embossing surface is obtained by etching which inherently comprises a chemical reaction: C1, L68-C2, L5).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maaninen (US 20100327485 – of record).
Regarding claims 5-7, Gladen is silent about a specific embossing temperature, pressure, and time interval.
[0037-0040] of Applicant’s published application admit that embossing conditions of temperature, pressure, and duration are well-known optimizable result effective parameters in the art, wherein their optimization/selection depends on the material to be embossed and the desired embossing quality. See MPEP § 2129.
In the same field of endeavor, hot embossing or embossing conditions yielding embossing of holograms in a thermoplastic polymer, Maaninen discloses the technique of using a temperature between 90-145 °C which anticipates the claimed temperature range, a pressure of 6 bars which anticipates the claimed pressure range, and an embossing time interval of 5 seconds which anticipates the claimed time interval range during a hot embossing step for benefit(s) of enhancing embossing quality of thermoplastic carbohydrate polymers (Abstract, 0055-0056, P0072, Table 2).
Since embossing temperature, pressure, and time are well-known optimizable result effective parameters in the art and Examiner did not find evidence of criticality for selecting the claimed ranges, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of Maaninen by performing the embossing step at a temperature withing the claimed temperature range, at a pressure within the claimed pressure range, and at a time interval within the claimed time interval range for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable result(s) of enhancing hot embossing of thermoplastic parts and/or improving embossing results/quality as suggested by Maaninen.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladen in view in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Mitsuyoshi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Okubo (US 5480596 – of record) or Kawanishi (US 20040223220).
Regarding claim 12, the combination, as applied above to claim 4 above, fails to disclose the step of depositing, on the surface of the object, a primer promoting the adhesion of the polymer.
In the same field of endeavor, embossing or multilayer embossing tools for embossing a polymer surface, Okubo discloses the step of applying a polymer layer (9) on the surface of an object (1) comprises the following sub-steps of:
depositing, on the surface of the object (1), a primer (“primer layer”) promoting the adhesion of the polymer (9), and depositing the polymer layer (9) on the primer for the benefit(s) of increasing adhesion of the polymer to the object, increasing productivity, and reducing rate of errors (C2, L49-65; C4, L50 to C5, L53, Fig. 1). Okubo further discloses a relevant multilayer embossing tool/roll (3: Fig. 1 and accompanying text).
In the same field of endeavor, hot embossing a polymer surface (abstract, P0057-0058), Kawanishi discloses the technique of depositing on a surface of a polymer object (41) a primer (42: P0101-0108, 0093-0095), and depositing a polymer layer (43) on the primer (P0139-0040, Fig. 8) before a hot embossing step (Fig. 1) for the benefit(s) of reinforcing the polymer object, promoting adhesion of the polymer layer, and/or obtaining a suitable/desirable multi-layer hot embossable product (P0139-0040, Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of Okubo and/or Kawanishi by depositing, on the surface of the object, a primer promoting the adhesion of the polymer, and depositing the polymer layer on the primer for the benefit(s) of reinforcing the object, promoting adhesion of the polymer layer, obtaining a suitable/desirable multi-layer hot embossable product, increasing productivity, and/or reducing rate of errors as suggested by Okubo and/or Kawanishi.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladen in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Mitsuyoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lacey (US 5932150 – of record).
Regarding claim 13, the combination, as applied above to claim 1 above, fails to disclose a step of applying a metal or oxide layer after the embossing step.
In the same field of endeavor, hot embossing or embossing of hologram/pattern in a polymeric/thermoplastic film, Lacey discloses the technique of incorporating a step of applying a metal layer after the embossing step for the benefit of enhancing the reflective properties and/or desirability of the embossed article/hologram (C2, L36-40; C6, L1-5; C7, L27-36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of Lacey by incorporating a step of applying a metal layer after the hot embossing step for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of enhancing the reflective properties and/or desirability of the embossed object as suggested by Lacey.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladen in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Mitsuyoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vedamuttu (US 6165391 – of record).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the combination, as applied above to claim 1 above, fails to disclose a step of applying a protective polymer after the embossing step.
In the same field of endeavor, hot embossing or embossing of holograms in a polymer substrate, Vedamuttu discloses the technique of applying a protective polymer after the embossing step, wherein the protective polymer is a varnish (applying protective layer of lacquer 13 consisting of a resin such as RENGOLUX on the embossed substrate 10 after the step of embossing substrate 10 made of polycarbonate with a heated embossing shim: C4, L49-61; C5, L25-39; Fig. 1, Fig. 4 shows embossing of substrate 10) for the benefit(s) of enhancing properties/desirability of the embossed article (C1, L13-21; C5, L1-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Gladen in view of Vedamuttu by incorporating a step of applying a protective polymer after the embossing step, wherein the protective polymer is a varnish for the benefit(s) of enhancing properties/desirability/protection of the embossed object as suggested by Vedamuttu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Aoya (US 20140117587) discloses PET/polyester as suitable/desirable hot embossable polymer in the art (Abstract, P0060-0061).
Takahashi (US 20060065136 – of record) discloses a relevant embossing plate/tool and embossing conditions (P0127, Fig. 20A, and accompanying text, and other relevant citations in the Internation Search Report).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights