DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, WO 2019/065801 A1, in view of Zahalka, US 2013/0190734. US 2021/0001611 A1 is an English-language equivalent of WO 2019/065801 A1 and will be cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Ueno teaches a decorative sheet comprising a polyethylene substrate sheet (10 of Fig. 2, [0023]), a picture auxiliary layer (21 of Fig. 2) laminated over one entire surface of the substrate sheet, and a picture pattern layer (22 of Fig. 2) that is laminated on a side of the picture auxiliary layer opposite the substrate sheet.
The teachings of Ueno differ from the present invention in that although Ueno teaches that the substrate may contain an antioxidant ([0041]), Ueno does not specifically teach that the antioxidant is a phenol. Zahalka, however, teaches that phenol antioxidants may be used in such polyethylene films in order to protect the material from oxidating degradation (Abstract, [0003], [0020]-[0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a phenol antioxidant as the antioxidant of Ueno, as doing so would protect the polyethylene substrate of Ueno from oxidative damage.
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 stating that the polyethylene material is “biomass-derived,” this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Note that product-by-process limitations are not limited by the recited steps, and are instead limited only by the structure implied by the recited steps (MPEP 2113 I). As there is no apparent reason why the structure of a polyethylene film that contained biomass-derived polyethylene as claimed would materially differ from an otherwise-identical film that contained polyethylene made from any other source material, the product-by-process limitation related to the origin of the polyethylene material cannot distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 12-13, Zahalka teaches that the phenol antioxidant may be a hindered phenol antioxidant ([0020]) that is combined with a phosphorus antioxidant in a 1:1 ratio ([0020]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ueno teaches that the layer 21 (corresponding to the claimed “picture auxiliary layer”) may have a thickness of 0.5 to 15 microns ([0079]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, it is unclear what structure the claimed “smoothing” would impart upon the picture auxiliary layer other than general flatness. As the layer 21 of Ueno is depicted as flat (Fig. 2), the limitation cannot distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ueno teaches that the decorative sheet may include a primer layer (corresponding to the claimed “adhesion auxiliary layer”) on the side of the substrate opposite the printed layer (ie, the second face). See [0141]-[0142]. Alternatively, Ueno teaches an adhesive layer ([0157]) that may be regarded as corresponding to the claimed “adhesion auxiliary layer.”
Regarding claims 8 and 17, although Ueno teaches that the primer layer (corresponding to the claimed “adhesion auxiliary layer”) may contain nitrocellulose ([0144], [0077]; note that [0144] teaches that any of the resins taught for use in the solid printing layer may also be used in the primer, and [0077] teaches the optional presence of nitrocellulose in the solid printing layer), the presence of nitrocellulose in the primer layer is clearly optional. In the case that no nitrocellulose was present, the amount of nitrocellulose would be 0%, in compliance with the presently-claimed “5% or less.” If nitrocellulose were present in the layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate amount based on the desired material properties of the layer and the other components of the layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ueno teaches that the decorative sheet may further comprise a transparent resin layer (30 of Fig. 2, [0019]) on the side of the picture pattern layer opposite the auxiliary layer with (Fig. 2) with a thickness of 10 – 100 microns ([0114]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Ueno teaches that the transparent resin layer may be an olefin resin ([0107]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Ueno teaches that the second side of the decorative sheet may be adhered to an adherend ([0154]-[0155]).
Claims 1-20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno, WO 2019/065801 A1, in view of Zahalka, US 2013/0190734, and further in view of Kasireddy et al., US 2022/0204663 A1. US 2021/0001611 A1 is an English-language equivalent of WO 2019/065801 A1 and will be cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Ueno teaches a decorative sheet as discussed above. As discussed above, the teachings of Ueno differ from the present invention in that although Ueno teaches the use of polyethylene, Ueno does not specifically teach the use of biomass-derived polyethylene. Kasireddy, however, teaches that polyethylene may be made from biomass (Abstract). Kasireddy further teaches that producing polyethylene from biomass is sustainable, environmentally-friendly, and in demand by consumers ([0003]-[0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use biomass-derived polyethylene as the polyethylene of Ueno, because doing so would be sustainable, environmentally-friendly, and in demand by consumers.
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims are rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785