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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed to the abstract, claims, and specification filed 06/05/2025 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
(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, 5-6, 9, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams (US-20190099915).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches:
A method for manufacturing a decorative element comprising a substrate and a top layer wherein the substrate is made of an engineered stone ([0002]) and wherein the top layer comprises a decorative pattern ([0032] – [0037]), comprising the steps of:
providing a mixture comprising at least an inorganic filler and a binder ([0017] – [0018]);
compacting the mixture ([0010] and [0025]);
curing the binder to obtain the substrate ([0011] and [0028]);
and wherein the method comprises the step of inkjet printing a first decorative pattern on at least a top surface of the substrate ([0028] - [0035] and [0081]),
wherein the inks are heat curable ink, for example sublimation inks ([0037] and [0083]),
wherein the method preferably comprises the step of curing the printed ink by exposing the printed substrate to heat ([0033], [0037], and [0083]),
wherein the method comprises the step of providing a protective coating above the first decorative pattern ([0041] – [0042] and [0095] – [0097]).
Regarding claim 5, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the protective coat is acrylate based ([0042] and [0095]), for example acrylate-based oligomers such as epoxy acrylate, polyester acrylate, urethane acrylate, or acrylate-based monomers, preferably having functionality from 1 to 6.
Regarding claim 6, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the protective coat is in form of a single layer ([0042] and [0095] – [0096]; Figs. 13-14, #8).
Regarding claim 9, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Adams further teaches:
comprising the step of applying an adhesion promoter coating above the printed pattern ([0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on. Adams further teaches:
comprising applying a primer coating on the upper surface of the substrate, before said step of printing ([0041] – [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 12 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the primer coating is transparent or translucent ([0041] - [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 13 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the primer coating is a radiation curable substance, preferably UV curable substance ([0041] - [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 11, which claim 14 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the primer coating is applied in water-based form ([0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 17 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the mixture comprises one or more coloring agent ([0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 19 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein the mixture is provided into a mold ([0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 19, which claim 20 depends on. Adams further teaches:
wherein before and/or during the step of providing the mixture into the mold a first coloring agent or a first set of coloring agents is added to the mixture, and wherein the first coloring agent, or first set of coloring agents, is uniformly distributed in the substrate to provide basic color of the engineered stone ([0022] – [0023]) and/or wherein the first coloring agent, or first set of coloring agents, is distributed according to a random motif, like a random veined effect or a dotted effect.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20190099915) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chowdhury (US-20180037514).
Regarding claim 2, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the protective coating comprising UV absorbers. However, Chowdhury, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of inkjet printing material, on a cement based substrate, teaches:
wherein the protective coating comprises UV absorbers, for example belonging to the triazine family or benzotriazole family ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coating of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury and explicitly make it comprise UV absorbers. The purpose, as stated by Chowdhury, being that it may be used as surface additives to provide good substrate wetting and good anti-crater performance by reduction of surface tension of the coatings. Suitable stabilizers encompass typical UV absorbers, such as oxanilides, triazines, benzotriazoles ([0206]).
Regarding claim 3, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on, but does not teach the protective coating containing electron and/or radical scavengers. However, Chowdhury, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of inkjet printing material, on a cement based substrate, teaches:
wherein electron and/or radical scavenger are contained in the protective coating ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coating of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury and make it comprise electron and/or radical scavengers. The purpose, as stated by Chowdhury, being silicones, particularly polyether modified polydimethylsiloxane copolymers, may be used as surface additives to provide good substrate wetting and good anti-crater performance by reduction of surface tension of the coatings. Suitable stabilizers encompass typical UV absorbers, such as oxanilides, triazines, benzotriazoles (obtainable as Tinuvin™ grades from Ciba Geigy) and benzophenones. These may be used in combination with usual free-radical scavengers, for example sterically hindered amines, e.g. 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine and 2,6-di-tert-butylpiperidine (HALS compounds) ([0206]).
Regarding claim 4, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on, but does not teach the protective coating being made of a silicon-based material. However, Chowdhury, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of inkjet printing material, on a cement based substrate, teaches:
wherein the protective coating is made of a silicon-based material, preferably of silicon-based polymers or oligomers like, for example polysiloxanes or siloxane ([0206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coating of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Chowdhury and have it be made of a silicon-based material. The purpose, as stated by Chowdhury, being silicones, particularly polyether modified polydimethylsiloxane copolymers, may be used as surface additives to provide good substrate wetting and good anti-crater performance by reduction of surface tension of the coatings ([0206]).
Claims 7, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20190099915) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, respectively, and further in view of Metten (US-20200157012).
Regarding claim 7, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach the protective coating comprising a base coat and a top coat. However, Metten, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a decorative element on engineered stone with a decorative pattern top layer, teaches:
wherein the protective coating comprises a base coat that is applied above of the printed pattern and a top coat that is provided above the base coat ([0036]). Metten teaches using at least one cover layer as the protective coating ([0036] – [0037]) therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using Metten to modify Adams to include a base coat and a top coat provided one on top of the other, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends on, but does not teach the adhesion promoter comprising a silane and or siloxane based substance. However, Metten, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a decorative element on engineered stone with a decorative pattern top layer, teaches:
wherein the adhesion promoter coating comprises a silane and or siloxane based substance ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesion promoter of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Metten and have it comprise a silane and or siloxane based substance. The purpose, as stated by Metten, being to further improve the adhesion of the printing composition to the concrete ([0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 17, which claim 18 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the coloring agent being in the form of dye or pigment. However, Metten, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a decorative element on engineered stone with a decorative pattern top layer, teaches:
wherein the coloring agent can be in the form of dye or pigment ([0014], [0021], and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coloring agent of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Metten and explicitly have it be in the form of dye of pigment. The purpose, as stated by Metten, being according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the face concrete also contains color pigments ([0035]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20190099915) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowe (U.S. Patent No. 5372676).
Regarding claim 8, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, but does not teach wherein the protective coating is in form of a penetrating sealer. However, Lowe, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a decorative element on engineered stone with a decorative pattern top layer, teaches:
wherein the protective coating is in form of a penetrating sealer (Col. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective coating of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Lowe and make it a penetrating sealer. The purpose, as stated by Lowe, being to protect the replicated paving stone from the environment (Col. 4, lines 60 – 62).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20190099915) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Marzolin (US-20020182334).
Regarding claim 15, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 15 depends on, but does not teach a step of drying the primer coating. However, Marzolin, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing an engineered stone with an adhesion promoter on top, teaches:
comprises the step of drying the primer coating ([0002], [0004], and [0034]), for example using hot air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primer coating of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Marzolin and include a step of drying it. The purpose, as stated by Marzolin, being that it is preferable to leave an amount of time which is sufficient for the material to dry ([0034]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US-20190099915) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yeong (US-20100098952).
Regarding claim 16, Adams teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 16 depends on, but does not teach explicitly teach wherein the primer coating substantially disappears during said heat curing step. However, Yeong, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for manufacturing a decorative element on ceramic, teaches:
wherein the primer coating substantially disappears during said heat curing step ([0085]; Fig. 1, #5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat curing step of Adams to incorporate the teachings of Yeong and explicitly have the primer coating disappear during. The purpose, as stated by Yeong, being that the uppermost layer (protective layer) liquefies at as low a temperature as about 250° C. to about 350° C., and this layer disappears in the course of the firing operation without leaving a residue ([0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
