DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 17/762,704 filed 22 March 2025, which is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2020/038664 filed 13 October 2020, which claims priority to JP2019-189628 filed 16 October 2019. Claims 1-4 are pending. Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s election.
Amendments to the claims, filed 8 January 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejections made of record in the previous Office action are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watase et al. (JP2009291996A with citations taken from the Applicant-provided machine translation) (Watase) in view of Terada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0203323 A1) (Terada), and as evidenced by Kaneshiro et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0011231 A1) (Kaneshiro).
Reference is made to FIG. 1(b) of Watase, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 2:
Watase discloses a transfer sheet <12> having at least a hard coat layer <2>, a base sheet <1>, and an adhesive layer <5> (paragraph [0020]).
Said base sheet <1> meets the claimed base material layer.
Said hard coat layer <2> meets the claimed transfer layer.
Said adhesive layer <5> meets the claimed adhesion layer.
Said adhesive layer <5> is formed on a side of the hard coat layer <2> that is opposite to the surface on which base sheet <1> is present. This arrangement meets the claimed adhesion layer provided on an opposite surface side to the base material layer of the transfer layer.
Watase further discloses that the hard coat layer <2> is an after-cure type in which, during coating film formation on base sheet <1> the layer is not irradiated and remains uncured, and after transfer to a resin molded product, the layer is irradiated with active energy rays and undergoes a curing reaction (paragraph [0028]). Watase further discloses that electron beams or ultraviolet rays are used for irradiation with active energy rays (paragraph [0025]). This disclosure meets the claimed limitations “resin constituting the transfer layer ionizing radiation curable resin” and “wherein the ionizing radiation resin is at least one of an ultraviolet curable resin and an electron beam curable resin”.
Watase further discloses that the adhesive layer <5> is composed of a polyacrylic resin (paragraph [0033]).
Kaneshiro provides evidence that acrylic adhesives are thermosetting adhesives (paragraph [0003]).
Watase does not disclose an amount of component to impart liquid repellency added to the adhesion layer such that the structure can effectively perform its intended use.
Therefore, the adhesive layer <5> composed of a polyacrylic resin is construed to meet the claimed limitation “a resin constituting the adhesion layer is a thermosetting resin not containing a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency”.
Watase does not explicitly disclose the contact angle with respect to pure water of a surface on an opposite surface of the transfer layer of the adhesion layer.
However, Terada discloses an adhesive tape having a surface with a water contact angle of less 10° or less such that the wettability of the surface improves, adhesiveness with an adherend improves, and adhesive force enlarges (paragraph [0060]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to ensure that the surface of the adhesion layer opposite the transfer layer of Watase has a water contact angle taught by Terada. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the wettability, adhesiveness, and adhesive force of the adhesion layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Terada with Watase to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2011093116 with citations taken from the cited machine translation) (Suzuki) in view of Terada.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 2:
Suzuki discloses a hard coat transfer sheet formed by laminating at least a hard coat layer and an adhesive layer in this order on a base material (paragraph [0011]).
Said hard coat layer meets the claimed transfer layer.
Said adhesive layer meets the claimed adhesion layer.
Said base material meets the claimed base material layer.
The hard coat transfer sheet formed by laminating at least a hard coat layer and an adhesive layer in this order on a base material meets the claimed adhesion layer provided on an opposite surface side to the base material layer of the transfer layer.
Suzuki further discloses that the adhesive layer is applied on an uncured hard coat layer (paragraph [0019]) and is cured after transfer to the transfer body target (paragraph [0026]). Suzuki further discloses that the hard coat layer is cured using UV irradiation (paragraph [0035]). This disclosure is construed to meet the claimed “resin constituting the transfer layer is an uncured ionizing radiation curable resin” and “wherein the ionizing radiation curable resin is at least one an ultraviolet curable resin”.
Suzuki discloses that the binder of the adhesive layer includes thermosetting resins (paragraph [0029]). Suzuki does not disclose an amount of component to impart liquid repellency added to the adhesion layer such that the structure can effectively perform its intended use; therefore, Suzuki meets the limitation “a resin constituting the adhesion layer is a thermosetting resin not containing a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency”.
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the contact angle with respect to pure water of a surface on an opposite surface of the transfer layer of the adhesive layer.
However, Terada discloses an adhesive tape having a surface with a water contact angle of less 10° or less such that the wettability of the surface improves, adhesiveness with an adherend improves, and adhesive force enlarges (paragraph [0060]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to ensure that the surface of the adhesive layer opposite the transfer layer of Suzuki has a water contact angle taught by Terada. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the wettability, adhesiveness, and adhesive force of the adhesion layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Terada with Suzuki to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous prior art rejections are fully considered, but are moot since the rejections have been replaced by new grounds necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/13/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788