DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-22 in the reply filed on 7-17-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner believes that the “comprising” of the second line was intended to be “comprises”. 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.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites an “easy-adhesive layer,” but it is unclear what is meant by the term “easy-adhesive” or how such an “easy” adhesive would differ from a standard adhesive. For the purpose of continued examination, the examiner will assume that limitation is directed to an adhesive layer.
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.
Claims 12-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoji, JP2019064132 A, cited herein according to a translation.
Regarding claim 12, Shoji teaches a decorative plate comprising, in order, a core paper (21 of Fig. 2), a decorative base paper (22 of Fig. 2), an easy-adhesive layer (13 of Fig. 2), and a surface-protective layer (12 of Fig. 2). Note that although Shoji refers to the layer 12 as a “transfer-layer,” Shoji teaches that the transfer layer 12 is made from a resin with a high hardness so as to provide the surface with scratch resistance ([0048]), and the layer 12 is thus considered to constitute a “protective layer” in accordance with the present claims. Shoji teaches that the core paper and the decorative paper each comprise a cured product of a curable resin ([0094]-[0095], [0101]) and that the transfer layer 12 (corresponding to the claimed “protective layer”) may comprise a UV absorbing agent ([0084]).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Shoji teaches that the product may comprise additional layers located between layers 13 and layer 22 ([0050]). Such additional layers would correspond to the claimed “heat seal layer”.
Regarding claim 14, Shoji teaches that the adhesive layer may include a UV absorber ([0055]).
Regarding claim 15, Shoji also teaches that the layer may comprise a prepreg ([0096]), which would comprise an additional partly-cured resin.
Regarding claim 16, Shoji teaches that the resin may be melamine ([0098]).
Regarding claim 19, Shoji teaches that the protective layer 12 may comprise a filler ([0032]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 20, Shoji teaches a thickness of 30 – 50 microns ([0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Shoji teaches that the product may comprising a releasable support (base sheet 11 of Fig. 2, [0024]). Note that Shoji teaches in [0024] that the base sheet 11 is “easily peeled off.”
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji, JP2019064132 A, as applied above.
Regarding claim 18, Shoji teaches a product as discussed above. The teachings of Shoji differ from the present invention in that although Shoji teaches that the paper of the decorative base paper layer 22 may be decorative ([0097]), Shoji does not explicitly teach that the paper may comprise a pattern. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a pattern on the paper layer 22 of the product of Shoji, as doing so would allow the layer to be “decorative,” in keeping with the teachings of Shoji. Additionally, the claimed pattern appears to be an aesthetic feature with no mechanical function, and as such cannot distinguish the claimed invention because matters related only to ornamentation cannot distinguish the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.04 I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji, JP2019064132 A as applied above, in view of Shibayama et al., US 2020/0048445 A1.
Regarding claim 17, the teachings of Shoji differ from the present invention in that although Shoji teaches that the product may contain UV absorbing agents as discussed above, Shoji does not teach any specific type of UV absorbing agent (ie, does not teach a triazine compound as claimed). Shibayama, however, teaches a similar laminate product (Abstract) and teaches numerous triazine compounds as useful UV absorbing additives ([0027]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use triazine compounds as the UV absorbers of Shoji because Shibayama explicitly teaches triazine compounds to be appropriate for use as UV absorbers in such laminate products.
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