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)(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.
(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, 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS with references to equivalent PGPub 2003/0030188 for ease of reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Spengler teaches a process for coating a preformed substrate (Fig. 3- substrate 30), wherein the process comprises:
providing a semi-finished product comprising:
i) said preformed substrate (Fig. 3- substrate 30),
ii) a coating layer superimposed to said preformed substrate (Fig. 1, 3- skin film 21), and
iii) a layer of adhesive interposed between said preformed substrate and said coating layer (Fig. 1, 3- foam backing 22);
heating said semi-finished product by infrared irradiation (infrared heater array 52) for bringing said layer of adhesive to a temperature greater than or equal to an activation temperature of said adhesive [0039]; [0047]; and
subsequently, compressing said semi-finished product by pressing said preformed substrate and said coating layer against each other (Fig. 3), while cooling said coating layer [0044].
Regarding Claim 4, Spengler further teaches heating said semi-finished product by infrared irradiation is performed by directly irradiating a free face of said coating layer (Fig. 1) and maintaining, along a reference direction, a first distance between each irradiating point and said free face of the coating layer within a first neighbourhood of a first reference value having extremes respectively equal to +/- 15% of said first reference value (Fig. 1- see lateral movement of cover sheet 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Spengler further teaches heating said semi-finished product by infrared irradiation is performed in a time interval greater than or equal to 5 s ([0039]- the skin film is heated to at least its melting temperature) and
by an infrared source comprising a main body having a fixing surface, facing said substrate (Fig. 1- heater arrangement 50), counter-shaped to said second face of the substrate (Fig. 1- see flat arrangement of cover sheet 20 and heater arrangement 50), and a plurality of sub-sources fixed to said main body at said fixing surface and spatially homogeneously distributed on said fixing surface (Fig. 1- see heater array 52), and wherein a second distance, along a reference direction, between each point of said fixing surface and a free face of said coating layer is comprised within a second neighbourhood of a second reference value having extremes respectively equal to +/- 15% of said second reference value (Fig. 1- see distance maintained between heater array 52 and cover sheet 20).
Regarding Claim 10, Spengler further teaches said preformed substrate is made of one between: polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, polystyrene, natural fiber, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, or combinations thereof [0046], wherein said coating layer comprises an aesthetic sheet which realizes a free face of the coating layer and it is made of one or more between: natural leather, imitation leather, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, thermoplastic olefins, fabric made of synthetic or natural textile fibers [0007], wherein said aesthetic sheet is in single piece or comprises a plurality of pieces sewn together [0007],
wherein, before said heating by infrared irradiation, the process comprises fixing a position of said coating layer on said preformed substrate by fixing means or by localized pre-activation of some portions of adhesive (Fig. 1- cover sheet 20 preformed), and wherein said coating layer comprises a functional layer made of open-cells or closed-cells polymeric foam (Fig. 1-3- foam backing 22) coupled with said aesthetic sheet and interposed between said layer of adhesive and said aesthetic sheet ([0043]- foam backing 22 acting as a molding intermediary (adhesive)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS with references to equivalent PGPub 2003/0030188 for ease of reference).
Regarding Claim 2, Spengler further teaches heating said semi-finished product by infrared irradiation is performed with said semi-finished product laid on a support surface of a support element (Fig. 1- cover sheet 20 on contact plate 54),
wherein the process comprises arranging said semi-finished product in a mould (Figs. 1-3- front mold tool 2, back mold tool 3) comprising a first (Figs. 1-3- front mold tool 2) and a second half-mould (Figs. 1-3- front mold tool 2) each having a respective compression surface (Figs. 1-3- mold surfaces 5 and 11) counter-shaped to said preformed substrate (Figs. 1-3- see mold shape),
wherein a time interval between an end instant of said heating and a start instant of said compressing is less than or equal to 60 seconds (Figs. 1-3 showing immediate transfer between steps),
wherein said compressing said semi-finished product is performed by pressing said first and second half-mould against each other, with said semi-finished product interposed between said compression surfaces and with said coating layer proximal to said first half-mould (See Figs. 1-3),
wherein, during said compressing, a pressure exerted by said first and second half-moulds on said semi-finished product is less than or equal to 1.5 bar and greater than or equal to 0.2 bar [0014],
Spengler further teaches tempering the mold to a constant and uniform temperature that is suitable for cooling and solidifying the molded part at an appropriate rate [0032] thus the temperature of the mold is a result-effective variable modifying the solidification rate of the molded part. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize the temperature of the mold through routine experimentation in order to perfect the result-effective variable of the solidification rate of the molded part, consult MPEP 2144.05 II thus meeting the instant limitation of said cooling is performed while keeping a temperature of said first half-mould less than or equal to 30°C.
Regarding Claim 3, Spengler further teaches said support element coincides with said second half-mould (Figs. 2-3) and said support surface coincides with said compression surface of the second half-mould (Figs. 2-3),
wherein providing said semi-finished product comprises laying said semi-finished product on the compression surface of the second half-mould in a separate position from the first half-mould (Figs. 1-3),
wherein the process comprises moving the semi- finished product (99)-by translation of the second half-mould from a first position, in which faces an infrared source (Fig. 1 left side), to a second position, in which is located at the first half-mould (Fig. 1 right side), and vice versa,
wherein said compression surface of the second half-mould is substantially counter-shaped to a first face of said preformed substrate facing towards said second half-mould (Figs. 1-3), and
wherein, during said heating the semi-finished product, the process comprises keeping said second half-mould at a temperature greater than or equal to 35°C and less than or equal to 65°C [0035].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-9 are 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:
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 6 is Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest each sub-source is a filament infrared lamp, wherein a pitch between two adjacent filament infrared lamps is greater than or equal to 70 mm and less than or equal to 140 mm, wherein said first or second reference value is calculated as a product of a predetermined coefficient, greater than or equal to 1.3 and less than or equal to 2, and said pitch. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the method of Spengler to include a specific type of infrared lamp with a specific pitch between lamps. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 7 is Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest said main body is made of a thermally and/or electrically insulating material, wherein each sub-source is a metal strip suitable for emitting infrared radiation when brought to a determined temperature, wherein each strip is deformable, is made of Ni-Cr alloy, is in single piece, has a wavy development along a main development line, has a width greater than or equal to 2 mm and less than or equal to 40 mm and a thickness greater than or equal to 0.01 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm, wherein said main body comprises a layer of electrically insulating material defining said fixing surface, and wherein said first or second reference value is greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 150 mm. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the method of Spengler to include a specific infrared lamp structure. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 8 is Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS) as set forth above. Spengler further keeping the foam backing relatively cool [0039] but does not specify said activation temperature of the adhesive is greater than or equal to 45°C and less than or equal to 95°C, and wherein said temperature of the layer of adhesive at the end of said heating by infrared irradiation exceeds said activation temperature of the adhesive by a value less than or equal to 25°C.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 9 is Spengler (EP1284182 cited in IDS) as set forth above. Spengler teaches the foam backing acting as a molding intermediary (adhesive) [0043] and is preferably a foaming polymeric material such as polypropylene or polyurethane [0038] but does not specify said adhesive is a reactive hot-melt adhesive or a reactive water-based adhesive, wherein said adhesive comprises a first component selected from: acrylic resin, polyurethane resin, epoxy resin, silicone resin, neoprene resin, polyolefin resin, polyamide resin, wherein providing said semi-finished product comprises spraying and/or spreading said adhesive on at least one of said substrate and coating layer, and wherein said layer of adhesive has a weight per unit area greater than or equal to 20 g/m2 and less than or equal to 160 g/m2. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the method of Spengler to include the specific claimed qualities of the adhesive. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piccard et al (PGPub 2021/0060919) teaches an alternative method of wrapping a decorative skin with non-contact activated adhesive
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 8/28/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights