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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 1-2, 4, 7-15, 17-21, 23 and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230070878 A1 (Paolilli et al.) solely or alternatively in view of US 2016/0376465 ( Wang et al.).
Re claims 1, 8 11, and 27-29, Paolilli teaches the claimed invention in Fig. 1 and 2 and associated text as shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
455
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
same as Applicant’s instant invention shown below Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
671
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(spec).
What happens when is conditional limitations furthered by process limitations in a product claim - Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Patentability of an article depends on the article itself and not the method used to produce it (see MPEP 2113). Furthermore, the invention defined by a product-by-process invention is a product NOT a process. In re Bridgeford, 357 F. 2d 679. It is the patentability of the product claimed and NOT of the recited process steps which must be established. In re Brown, 459 F. 29 531. Both Applicant’s and prior art reference’s product are the same.
See Abstract, [10], [31]. [53], [55] and [91]. The reference is anticipatory.
Re claim 2, see [32] and [71-72].
Re claims 5, 7, 11-14 and 17, see [103] and Table 1 – crosslinker is MAH-g-PP.
Re claim 9, see [17].
Re claims 15 and 18, see [78].
Re claims 10 and 19, see exact material and index range [15].
Re claim 20, see [27].
Re claim 21, see exact material and range [28].
Re claim 23, see exact material and range [28].
Re claim 14, Paolilli teaches a coating print receptive layer of MAH-g-PO, but not that it s the primer layer [100-101]; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the primer layer and include the print receptive materials for improving adhesion as set forth in [101].
Further Re claims 1 and 29, that acrylic is 5% or less, "less than 5%" is not required and [80] doesn't require acrylic as polyurethane can be used. Thus Paolili embraces applicant's less than 5%. Further [7] teaches acrylic has an adverse optical properties and Paolili doesn’t require it in every embodiment, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composite and exclude acrylic to avoid adverse optical properties.
Further re claims 1 and 29 the claimed adhesion promoter (claims 26 and 30-31), Paollil is silent to and alternatively, acrylic is also optional.
Wang discloses in [18, 25-26], [31] Examples 10, 14, It is to be understood that the first, second, and, if used, third blocks of the block copolymer may be produced in any order (sequence), and that one of the blocks may be reactive with the first and/or second component, while another of the blocks has functional groups that promote adhesion to a polymeric substrate; and also, no acrylic as it is optional and not required (0% overlaps applicant’s claimed range of claim 1) and a non-reactive adhesion promoter, the same ADVANTIS for promoting adhesion to polyolefin surfaces; thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composite and include the claimed promoter to adhere to polyolefin surfaces.In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges of wt% of acrylic for it is not a necessary material to achieve adhesion to a surface taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s declaration and arguments are unconvincing. The acrylic is now not required as less than 5% includes zero. Further, arguments to Examples of Wang are not convincing. None of the examples require a non-reactive adhesion promoter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights