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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn. Claims 12-17 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/6/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Each instance of “decorative layer” should correctly be “decorative sheet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1. Claims 12-17 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 12 recites the limitations "the first surface areas" and “the second surface areas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no initial recitation of first and second surface areas. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite. Claims 13-17 depend from claim 12 and are indefinite for the same reasons. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as “curing a first surface area more than a second surface area”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second curing step". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no initial recitation in claim 15 or parent claim 13 of a second curing step. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as depending from claim 14 for which there is antecedent basis for a second curing step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim(s) 12-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullen et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7230764).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 17, Mullen teaches a method comprising: providing a UV transparent substrate and printing a decorative ink pattern layer that is at least partially UV blocking on the backside of the substrate (column 6, lines 55-66 and Figure 4); providing a UV curable coating on the upper side of the substrate (column 6, lines 29-51); and selectively curing by exposing the UV curable coating to UV radiation through the back side of the transparent substrate and the ink pattern layer (Figure 4 and column 6, lines 29-51 and column 7, lines 56-64) such that first surface areas and second surface areas with different textures are formed by curing first surface areas more than second surface areas (claim 10, column 7, lines 3-12, column 8, lines 32-49 and column 10, lines 2-17). Mullen further teaches that a second curing step can be used for curing the surface areas (see Mullen at Figure 23 wherein second and third curing lamps are used in sequence), and that a mold can be placed over the UV curable coating and in contact with the coating while the coating is being exposed to UV radiation, followed by separating the cured coating on the substrate from the mold (see Figure 16, wherein the roller has a structure that acts as a mold for the coating material 118 that is applied). Finally, Mullen additionally teaches that the resultant decorative sheet produced from the process can be adhered as a top layer on a substrate for forming a decorative panel (column 14, lines 56-60). Mullen teaches all the critical limitations of claims 12-14 and 17; therefore, Mullen anticipates the claims.
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.
3. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Lifetime investigation of excimer UV sources”).
Regarding claim 15, Mullen teaches all the limitations of claims 13 and 14, including a second curing step (see above), but fails to teach the curing conducted by exposure to an excimer irradiation source.
However, Zhang teaches that excimer lamps are known for curing UV curable coatings (Section 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mullen’s process by using excimer lamps in place of the generic UV source of Mullen. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Zhang teaches that excimer lamps provide long lifetimes, low fluctuation, and immediate UV output after ignition and provide greater stability and extended lamp life compared to conventional UV sources (Section 4).
4. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Kia et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6699419).
Regarding claim 16, Mullen teaches all the limitations of claim 13, but fails to teach providing a removable protecting coating on the surface textures.
However, Kia teaches forming surface textures on a substrate and providing a protective coating on a mold that then adheres to the surface textured substrate produced by contact with the mold to protect the resultant surface textured substrate and is removable from the surface textured substrate (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mullen’s process by including a protective coating over the textured surface as disclosed by Kia. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent the final product from being damaged during application or use.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn.
Claims 12-17 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 24, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717