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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 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 1 recites in lines 6-8 “one surface of the printing layer being bonded with the first adhesive layer, the pattern being located on another surface of the printing layer.” The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first surface of the printing layer being bonded with a first surface of the first adhesive layer, the pattern being located on a second surface of the printing layer.”
Claim 1 recites “the surface film layer being bonded with the another surface of the printing layer” in lines 10-12. The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the surface film layer being bonded with the second surface of the printing layer.”
Claim 2 recites “one surface of the surface film layer of the covering film is bonded with the second adhesive layer, and another surface of the surface film layer is a textured surface...” The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first surface of the surface film layer of the covering film is bonded with the second adhesive layer, and a second surface of the surface film layer is a textured surface…”
Claim 3 recites “a texture” in line 1, but claim 3 depends from claim 2, wherein “a texture” is introduced.
Claim 4 recites “one surface of the surface film layer” in line 2. The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first surface of the surface film layer.”
Claim 5 recites “one surface of the surface film layer” in line 2. The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first surface of the surface film layer.”
Claim 6 recites “the surface film layer of the covering film is added with pearlescent powder…” The recitation is grammatically not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the surface film layer of the covering film includes pearlescent powder…”
Claim 7 recites “one surface of the surface film layer” in line 1. The recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first surface of the surface film layer.”
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marecki (US 5631064), in view of Brown (US 4082426).
With respect to claim 1, Marecki discloses a flexible sheet with graphic (abstr., col. 13, lines 49-67, col. 14, lines 17-27), comprising a sheet material with flexibility (col. 14, lines 17-27), and a multi-layered structure having a shape and disposed on a surface of the sheet material – the structure is an applique e.g. Fig. 4, thus, it has a shape (col. 4, lines 24-36, col. 14, lines 17-27), comprising a covering film including a transparent surface film layer – element 16 (col. 8, lines 24-40, col. 13, lines 55-56, Fig. 3), and a second adhesive layer – element 15 – transfer adhesive layer (col. 11, lines 30-45, Fig. 3).
Marecki is silent with respect to a first adhesive layer and a printing layer as recited in the claim. Brown discloses a flexible sheet with graphic, the graphic comprising a first adhesive layer – element 17 (abstr., col. 2, lines 39-53, Figs. 1-2), a printing layer – element 16 – a pattern – element 15 - printed on the printing layer, the printing layer being bonded to a first surface of the first adhesive layer (col. 2, lines 39-53, col. 3, lines 1-30, Fig. 3), the pattern being located on the second surface of the printing layer (Fig. 3). The graphic of Brown is adhered to a substrate by the first adhesive layer – element 17 (col. 2, lines 48-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first adhesive layer and the printing layer with a pattern printed on the printing layer in the sheet of Marecki, the surface film layer being bonded to the second surface of the printing layer by the second adhesive layer and covering the printed pattern as Marecki suggests additional layers provided under the covering film and the second adhesive layer (col. 13, lines 49-67), the flexible sheet of Marecki benefiting from pattern on the printing layer (Brown, col. 3, lines 28-42), as matters of aesthetics are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the sheet with graphic of Marecki and Brown, the graphic would be adhered onto the sheet material by the first adhesive layer.
With respect to the recitation “a multi-layered structure cut into a shape” the claim defines a product by how the product is made, thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 1; the references teach the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses a first surface of the surface film layer of the covering film, being bonded with the second adhesive layer – element 15, and the second surface of the surface film layer being a textured surface with a texture – element 16 has a texture on the second surface (Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 2. Marecki teaches the texture of the surface film layer is a concave-convex texture (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses the covering film comprises a zinc sulfide layer bonded to a first surface of the surface film layer – layer 17 can be a zinc sulfide layer (col. 10, lines 13-62, col. 11, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 5, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses the covering film comprises a metal layer bonded to a first surface of the surface film layer – layer 17 can be a metal layer (col. 10, lines 13-27). With respect to the metal layer not covering the entire surface film layer, changes in shape and size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 6, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses pearlescent pigment – pearlescent powder – included in the surface film layer (col. 11, lines 8-29).
With respect to claim 7, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses a first surface of the surface film layer is provided with micro-optical components – micro-convex lenses – element 11 (col. 9, lines 3-51, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses the surface film layer is a transparent light-reflective layer with a light-reflective component – element 18 (col. 9, lines 66-67, col. 10, lines 1-12, col. 13, lines 54-56, Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 8. Marecki discloses the surface film layer being provided with zinc sulfide – element 17 adjacent the surface film layer comprises zinc sulfide as a dielectric mirror (col. 9, lines 52-65, col. 11, lines 4-6, Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 10, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 8. Marecki discloses the sheet material such as cloth or plastic material (col. 4, lines 31-49, col. 14, lines 16-27).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marecki, in view of Brown, and further in view of Billingsley et al. (US 6110556) (“Billingsley”).
Regarding claim 11, Marecki and Brown teach the sheet of claim 1. Marecki discloses the second adhesive layer being a hot melt adhesive layer (col. 5, lines 17-67, col. 6, lines 1-38). Brown teaches the first adhesive layer - element 17 (col. 2, lines 48-50), but does not specify that the first adhesive layer is a hot melt adhesive layer. Billingsley discloses an applique for a fabric substrate (abstr.), wherein the applique is attached to the substrate with a hot melt adhesive (col. 7, lines 30-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first adhesive layer of Brown of a hot melt adhesive as it is known in the art of appliques to be adhered to a fabric to use hot met adhesives for attachment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights