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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 07/14/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 4 is cancelled and claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending.
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 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Udo (WO 2020/020545 A1) in view of Ohl (US 2016/0031196 A1).
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6: Udo teaches a multilayer structure 1 comprising a carrier layer 5, a metal layer 4, a film layer 3 and a decorative layer 7 in the order thereof (Fig. 7 and ¶287). The multilayer structure 1 meets the claimed decorative element, the film layer 3 meets the claimed support and the decorative layer 7 meets the claimed cover layer. Udo teaches the film layer 3 comprises a plastic material {instant claim 5} including oriented propylene (¶312).
Udo does not teach the film layer 3 is a plastic film with at least 50% PCR material. However, Ohl teaches a substrate comprising at least 50% by mass of recycled polypropylene {instant claims 3, 5 and 6} ([0073], [0074], [0076] and [0077]). Udo and Ohl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the polypropylene containing product art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recycled polypropylene of Ohl with the invention of Udo, and the motivation for combining would be to reduce waste and conserve resource.
Claim 2: Udo teaches the metal layer 4 can be provided between the film layer 3 and the decorative layer 7 (¶289). The metal layer 4 meets the claimed connection layer. It is well established that a metal is a recyclable material.
Claim 7: Udo teaches the metal layer 4 can be a metal selected from aluminum, chromium, gold, copper, palladium, silver and tin (¶303). It is well established that these metals are recyclable materials.
Claims 8 and 9: Udo teaches the decorative layer 7 can be formed by printing or coating {instant claim 9} on a paper or plastic (¶292). The paper/plastic meets the claimed cover ply and the decorative layer 7 meets the claimed decorative ply.
Claim 10: Udo teaches a protective layer 8 is provided on the decorative layer 7 (Fig. 6), wherein the protective layer 8 can be made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVAL) or polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (¶316), and it is well established that these materials are recyclable materials and cellulose fiber free.
Claims 11, 12 and 16: Udo teaches use of a connection layer 10 to connect the metal layer 4 and the carrier layer 5 (Fig. 5), wherein the connection layer 10 comprises a polyacrylate adhesive (¶294). In Udo, there is no mention of the polyacrylate adhesive contains cellulose fibers. The connection layer 10 meets the claimed sealing layer and adhesive layer. It is well established that an acrylic is a recyclable material.
Claims 13-15: Udo teaches the carrier layer 5 comprises wood, wood plastic composite, plastic, glass, ceramic or cement {instant claims 14 and 15} (¶322 and Fig. 8). The carrier layer 5 meets the plate shaped object.
Response to Arguments
In page 6, paragraph 4 of Applicant’s response, Applicant directed Examiner’s attention to page 1, lines 9-12 and page 7, lines 33-34 of Udo but failed to provide official translation to an English language. Due to the absence of official translation, it is difficult to fully understand Applicant’s argument. On September 9th 2024, the Office provided a machine English translation of the reference of Udo, the examiner reviewed pages 1 and 7 of this document searching what applicant to point out in page 6, paragraph 4 of Applicant’s response but it appear there are no matches.
Applicant argued that “Udo clearly teaches away from the use of polypropylene (PP) as the material for the substrate.” See last sentence of the 4th paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks. This argument is not persuasive because it is not clear which embodiment of Udo the applicant is referring to. In the prior art rejection above, the examiner relies on an embodiment discussed in Fig. 7, ¶287 and ¶312 (see machine English translation of Udo), and in these sections there is a discussion of film layer 3 but there is no discussion of substrate. It appears that Applicant’s argument is based on an embodiment that is not covered or discussed by the Office.
Applicant further argued that because Udo does not related to the field of endeavor of PP containing product art, the Office action’s stated rationale and motivation for combining Ohl and Udo is unfounded. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Udo teaches the film layer 3 comprises a plastic material including oriented propylene (¶312). Ohl teaches a substrate comprising at least 50% by mass of recycled polypropylene ([0074]-[0077]). The Examiner showed that Udo and Ohl are analogous art in field of polypropylene containing product art. Since the claimed support layer contains polypropylene (claim 6), the film layer 3 of Udo contains oriented propylene [¶312] and the substrate of Ohl contains recycled polypropylene ([0074]-[0077]), Udo and Ohl are analogous art in field of polypropylene containing product art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the recycled polypropylene of Ohl with the invention of Udo, and the motivation for combining would be to reduce waste and conserve resource.
For the above reasons claims 1-3 and 5-16 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
October 18, 2025
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785