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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 18, 23-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cogliano, et al. (US 3,874,964).
In reference to Claim 1, Cogliano discloses foamed polyurethane resin texture treated by rolls by heating (3:29-37) (a process for texturizing a surface made of a thermoplastic polymeric material to obtain a textured surface having regions of different roughness, the process comprising: providing a foamed surface made of foamed thermoplastic polymeric material), the foam surface has a textured surface (3:59-63) (the foamed surface having a first roughness grade); and the foam surface is heat and pressure treated to emboss the surface with a smooth or textured finish (4:4-10) (melting the foamed thermoplastic material at one or more regions of the foamed surface to cause reduction of roughness in said one or more regions to a second roughness grade, thereby obtaining the textured surface), the amount of heat applied about 150-200°C (4:16-19) (wherein said melting is obtained by contacting said foamed surface with at least one textured heated surface, said heated surface having a texture which has said second roughness grade, said textured heated surface is heated to a temperature of at least about 140°C).
In reference to Claim 4, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano discloses the lower and upper sections are texturized by different rollers (3:29-37) (said textured heated surface comprises a pattern having at least two zones differing therebetween by roughness grade).
In reference to Claim 5, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 4, as described above.
Cogliano discloses the lower and upper sections are texturized by different rollers (3:29-37) (said textured heated surface comprises first zones having said second roughness grade, and second zones having a third roughness grade smaller than said second roughness grade).
In reference to Claim 6, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano discloses the textured roller is heated (3:32-33) (said textured heated surface is a heated roller).
In reference to Claim 7, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane resin (3:30) (said thermoplastic polymeric material is a composition comprising polypropylene or a copolymer thereof).
In reference to Claim 8, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane with amines for foaming (4:37-50) (said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material is obtained by exothermal foaming).
In reference to Claim 9, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 8, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane with amines for foaming (4:37-50) (said thermoplastic polymeric material is a composition of one or more thermoplastic polymers and one or more exothermal blowing agents, said exothermal foaming comprises exposing said composition to conditions permitting exothermal decomposition of said exothermal blowing agent to obtain said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
In reference to Claim 18, Cogliano discloses foamed polyurethane resin texture treated by rolls by heating (3:29-37) the lower and upper sections are texturized by different rollers (3:29-37) (a process for providing an article having a textured surface comprising regions of different light reflectivity), the process comprising: polyurethane with amines for foaming (4:37-50) (providing a foamed surface made of foamed thermoplastic polymeric material to obtain a first light reflectivity of the surface); and the foam surface is heat and pressure treated to emboss the surface with a smooth or textured finish (4:4-10) (melting the foamed thermoplastic material at one or more regions of the foamed surface to cause reduction in roughness in said one or more regions, thereby obtaining a second light reflectivity of said one or more regions, said second light reflectivity being larger than said first light reflectivity wherein said foamed surface has a first roughness grade, and said melting is obtained by contacting said foamed surface with at least one textured heated surface), the lower and upper sections are texturized by different rollers (3:29-37) (said heated surface having a texture which has at least one second roughness grade, said heated surface comprising a pattern having at least two zones differing therebetween by roughness grade).
In reference to Claim 23, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano discloses the foam surface is heat and pressure treated to emboss the surface with a smooth or textured finish (4:4-10) (said textured heated surface is a heated roller).
In reference to Claim 24, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane resin (3:30) (said thermoplastic material is a composition comprising polypropylene or a copolymer thereof).
In reference to Claim 25, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane with amines for foaming (4:37-50) (said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material is obtained by exothermal foaming).
In reference to Claim 26, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 25, as described above.
Cogliano discloses polyurethane with amines for foaming (4:37-50) (the thermoplastic polymeric material is a composition of one or more thermoplastic polymers and one or more exothermal blowing agents, said exothermal foaming comprises exposing said composition to conditions permitting exothermal decomposition of said exothermal blowing agent to obtain said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
In reference to Claim 28, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano discloses foamed polyurethane resin texture treated by rolls by heating (3:29-37) (said article is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogliano, et al. (US 3,874,964) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2017/0120497).
In reference to Claim 11, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano does not disclose said textured surface is a surface of an extruded article.
Lin discloses extruding before roll pressing and embossing the extruded product ([0018]) (said textured surface is a surface of an extruded article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the extrusion process of Lin because Lin is extruding a polyurethane product with a final texture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to extrude the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Lin because it allows for a foamed polyurethane product. The reasonable expectation of success of using Lin’s polyurethane extrusion using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with textured surface.
In reference to Claim 12, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 11, as described above.
Cogliano discloses extruding the polyurethane before roll pressing and embossing the extruded product ([0018]) (said extruded article is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
In reference to Claim 27, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano does not disclose said article is obtained by extrusion.
Lin discloses extruding before roll pressing and embossing the extruded product ([0018]) (said article is obtained by extrusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the extrusion process of Lin because Lin is extruding a polyurethane product with a final texture. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to extrude the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Lin because it allows for a foamed polyurethane product. The reasonable expectation of success of using Lin’s polyurethane extrusion using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with textured surface.
Claims 13, 15-16, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogliano, et al. (US 3,874,964) in view of Lin (US 2017/0120497) as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Baker, et al. (US 2007/0148432).
In reference to Claim 13, modified Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 11, as described above.
Modified Cogliano does not disclose said extruded article comprises a core made of a non-foamed thermoplastic material, and said surface is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material
Baker discloses winding a foamed thermoplastic material around a core 82 ([0057]-[0058]) (said extruded article comprises a core made of a non-foamed thermoplastic material, and said surface is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the non-foam core of Baker because it allows for the foam to absorb without changing the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a core with the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Baker because it allows for pre-saturation. The reasonable expectation of success of using Baker’s non-foamed core using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with textured surface and non-foamed core.
In reference to Claim 15, modified Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 11, as described above.
Baker discloses winding a foamed thermoplastic material around a core 82 ([0057]-[0058]) (said extruded article comprises a core made of non-polymeric thermoplastic composition, coated by said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
In reference to Claim 16, modified Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 13, as described above.
Baker discloses tandem extrusion process ([0059]) (said extruded article is manufactured by co-extrusion of the foamed thermoplastic polymeric material onto the core).
In reference to Claim 29, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 18, as described above.
Cogliano does not disclose said article comprises a core made of a non-foamed thermoplastic material, and said surface is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material.
Baker discloses winding a foamed thermoplastic material around a core 82 ([0057]-[0058]) (said article comprises a core made of a non-foamed thermoplastic material, and said surface is made of said foamed thermoplastic polymeric material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the non-foam core of Baker because it allows for the foam to absorb without changing the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a core with the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Baker because it allows for pre-saturation. The reasonable expectation of success of using Baker’s non-foamed core using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with textured surface and non-foamed core.
In reference to Claim 30, modified Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 29, as described above.
Baker discloses tandem extrusion process ([0059]) (said article is obtained by co-extrusion).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogliano, et al. (US 3,874,964) further in view of Baker, et al. (US 2007/0148432).
In reference to Claim 17, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano does not disclose digitally printing one or more printing inks over at least one region of the textured surface.
Baker discloses printing inks on the surface ([0115]) (digitally printing one or more printing inks over at least one region of the textured surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the printing inks of Baker because it allows for the surface to be printed on. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include printing inks on the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Baker because it allows for ink on a surface. The reasonable expectation of success of using Baker’s printing inks using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with a printed surface.
In reference to Claim 22, Cogliano discloses the process of Claim 1, as described above.
Cogliano discloses the lower and upper sections are texturized by different rollers (3:29-37) (said heated surface comprises first zones having said second roughness grade).
Cogliano does not disclose second zones having a third roughness grade smaller than said second roughness grade.
Baker discloses winding a foamed thermoplastic material around a core 82 ([0057]-[0058]) (second zones having a third roughness grade smaller than said second roughness grade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the process of Cogliano using the non-foam core of Baker because it allows for the foam to absorb without changing the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a core with the polyurethane product of Cogliano like Baker because it allows for pre-saturation. The reasonable expectation of success of using Baker’s non-foamed core using Cogliano’s texturizing process is a foamed polyurethane product with textured surface and non-foamed core.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 19 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not specifically disclose a second light reflectivity is larger than said first light reflectivity by at least 20 Gloss Units (as measured according to ASTM D2457).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742