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 Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 39, in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 41-43, 51, 54, 55 and 62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/8/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 4, the limitations that the “filler is comprised of natural occurring material or derived from a natural occurring material” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 7, the limitations that the filler is comprised of “wood fibers” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 12, the limitations that the composite substrate has “an integral skin” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 16, the limitations that the layer adhered to the surface of the composite substrate “is comprised of a different material than the composite, the different material being a ceramic, organic polymer, metal, or mixture or composite thereof; and the adhered layer is comprised of a plurality of layers of differing materials” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 20, the limitations that the layer abutting to the surface of the composite substrate “is comprised of a ceramic, metal, organic polymer, mixture or composite thereof that is different than the non-polar thermoplastic polymer of the composite” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 23, the limitations that “an outer layer encapsulates at least a portion of the image accepting layer, and the accepting layer or outer layer having texturing that is in the form of wood grain, stone, brick or tile” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 36, the limitations that the image has “a depth that is about 10 micrometers to about 5 mm” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
As to claim 37, the limitations that the article has “a bending strength of about 250 psi to 20,000 psi according to ASTM D143” does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 12, 16, 20 and 31, the phrase “the composite” (twelve instances) is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the composite substrate” which is how the claims will be interpreted.
In claim 2, the phrase “copolymer of ethylene and propylene” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “a copolymer of ethylene and propylene” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 7, the phrase “is comprised of wood fibers or flour” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “is comprised of wood fibers or wood flour” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 9, the phrase “the filler is an organic, ceramic, metal or carbon fiber or particle” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the filler is a fiber or particle, and wherein the fiber or particle is an organic, ceramic, metal or carbon” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 16 on lines 2 and 4, the phrases “said adhered layer” and “the adhered layer” are objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “said layer adhered to the surface” and “the layer adhered to the surface” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 16 on line 6, the phrase “said abutting layer” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “said layer abutting the composite substrate” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 20 on lines 1 and 3, the phrases “the abutting layer” and “said abutting layer” are objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrases to “the layer abutting the composite substrate” and “said layer abutting the composite substrate” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 23, the phrase “and an outer layer encapsulates” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “, wherein the article further comprises an outer layer that encapsulates” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 23, the phrase “and the accepting layer or outer layer having texturing” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “and wherein the accepting layer or the outer layer has texturing” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 2, 16, 20, 23, 31, 36 and 37 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.
In claim 2, the phrase “the non-polar composite” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “the non-polar thermoplastic polymer” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 2, the phrase “a copolymer of ethylene, propylene or combination thereof with an acid or anhydride containing monomer” renders the claim indefinite for multiple reasons. First, it is unclear what is in the copolymer as a copolymer of a combination thereof does not make sense. Second, the copolymer including an acid or anhydride containing monomer would necessarily mean the copolymer is a polar thermoplastic, and therefore it cannot be a non-polar thermoplastic polymer. This rejection can be overcome by deleting the phrase to “a copolymer of ethylene, propylene or combination thereof with an acid or anhydride containing monomer” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 2, the material of “polyvinylidene” is not a chemical compound as it is missing the rest of the name of the compound. This rejection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “polyvinylidene dichloride”, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 16, the phrases “has a layer adhered to the composite” substrate and “an image accepting layer disposed upon said abutting layer” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the adhered layer of claim 16 is in addition to the one of claim 1 or if it the same adhered layer of claim 1; further, it is unclear if the image accepting layer has the dye sublimation image or there is a further layer for the dye sublimation image. This rejection can be overcome by changing the first phrase to “has the layer adhered to the surface of the composite substrate” and by amending the claim to include the limitations of original claim 23, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
In claim 31, the limitations of “the different material” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This phrase refers back to claim 16 that has a layer adhered to the surface that is made up of “a plurality of layers of differing materials”. It is unclear if “the different material” of claim 31 is referring the first, the second or each of the plurality of layers. For purposes of examination, if any of the layers is a different material than the composite substrate, this will read on the claim.
In claim 31, the limitations that the film is “arising from coalescing or curing of organic polymer particles dispersed in a liquid medium deposited on the composite” substrate renders the claim indefinite. If polymer particles are present, then they are already cured, and therefore it is unclear what is being cured to form the film. Additionally, if coalescing is occurring, then it is unclear if particles are remaining after the film is formed as [0037] of applicants’ specification states that the coalescing will form a contiguous film. Given the language at [0037] of applicants’ specification, any organic polymer film will read on the claim.
In claims 36 and 37, the term “about” is a term of degree that renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear how close to the endpoints of the ranges the value may be and still be considered “about 10” microns, “about 5 mm” and “about 250 psi to 20000 psi”. This is particularly unclear given that these ranges do not appear in the specification, and therefore the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 31, 36, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riebel et al. (WO 2012/009528).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20 and 31, Riebel et al. teach a substrate, which reads on applicants’ composite substrate, and a biolaminate composite laminated to the substrate, which reads on applicants’ layer adhered or integral to a surface of the composite substrate [0137]. The substrate may have wood flour, which reads on applicants’ filler having polar groups of natural material, mixed with PVC, PP or PE, which reads on applicants’ non-polar thermoplastic [0145]. The biolaminate composite may have a biolaminate layer printed on an outer surface with dye sublimation printing, which reads on applicants’ image accepting layer, integral skin as it constituent of the assembly, and the film of a different material [0116]. The biolaminate layer may be adhered to a non-plastic rigid substrate, which reads on applicants’ abutting layer, within the biolaminate composite [0061]. The biolaminate layer may include PLA with plasticizers and the non-plastic rigid substrate may be metal, wherein these materials are different from each other, are different from the substrate, and the metal will intrinsically have a higher melt temperature than the non-polar thermoplastic polymer [0040] and [0070]; however, they do not specifically teach a laminate with these materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made a biolaminate composite printed with a dye sublimation image attached to the substrate made from wood flour mixed with PVC, PP or PE, wherein the non-plastic rigid substrate is directly attached to the substrate. It would also have been obvious to have mixed the wood flour with PVC, PP or PE in any volume of the composite substrate, including from 5 to 90% by volume of the composite substrate, to form a substrate that had the proper water resistance and weight, while also saving money by using the wood waste. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in forming a proper assembly as these materials are all taught for this purpose.
With regard to claim 36, Riedel et al. teach the dye sublimation printing [0116]; however, they do not specifically teach the depth of printing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the dye sublimation printing process to sublimate the dye to any depth, including from 10 microns to 5 mm as claimed, such that a sufficient amount of dye has sublimated to form the image to the desired color intensity, while not wasting materials. One of ordinary ski
With regard to claim 37, given the fact that the article comprises the same materials and is for the same use, the article of Riedel et al. rendered obvious above will intrinsically possess the bending strength claimed absent objective evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 39, the composite assembly may be used for furniture or laminated flooring, which also reads on applicants’ board [0425].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riebel et al. (WO 2012/009528) in view of Zamo (EP 0625433).
Riebel et al. render obvious all of the limitations of claim 16 above. They also teach that there may be a clear layer, which reads on applicants’ outer layer encapsulating at least a portion of the image accepting layer, on the outer printed surface on the biolaminate layer [0116]. The clear layer may be textured [0113]; however, they do not teach the form of the texturing.
Zamo teaches a lining sheet for furniture elements that may be formed by sublistatic transfer printing a sheet, followed by a coating to protect the design and then an embossing operation to obtain designs in relief (col. 3, lines 1-8 and col. 5, lines 1-14). The designs in relief can be designing the pores of wood, which reads on applicants’ texturing of wood grain (col. 1, lines 34-38).
Since Riebel et al. and Zamo are both drawn to furniture elements having decorative layers on a core substrate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made the texturing of the clear layer of Riebel et al. in the form of the pores of wood as suggested by Zamo. The rationale to have done so is provide the desired appearance for the customer of wood grain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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 at (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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights