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 Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s election.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 12 May 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 May 2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 Suzuki et al. (JP2011093116 with citations taken from the cited machine translation) (Suzuki) and Terada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0203323 A1) (Terada).
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> may be formed as needed and is a layer for bonding the transfer material to a molded product, wherein the adhesive material is inclusive of polyacrylic resin, polyamide resin, or the like (paragraph [0033]).
Watase does not disclose an amount of silicone oil contained in the adhesive layer <5> such that said layer can effectively perform its intended use; therefore, Watase meets the claimed adhesion layer resin not containing a silicon oil as a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency.
Watase does not explicitly disclose a urethane resin adhesion layer. 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.
Regarding the urethane resin adhesion layer:
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]).
Suzuki discloses that the binder of the adhesive layer includes thermosetting resins inclusive of acrylic resins, polyamide resins, and urethane resins (paragraph [0030]).
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 replace the polyacrylic resin or the polyamide resin adhesive of Watase with the urethane resin adhesive of Suzuki. The motivation for doing so would have been that Suzuki establishes acrylic resins, polyamide resins, and urethane resins as art-recognized equivalent adhesives for the production of hardcoat transfer sheets; therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of success that the urethane adhesives of Suzuki would be suitable in the construction of Watase. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP §2143(B).
As to the claimed water contact angle:
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 Suzuki and 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 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 inclusive of urethane resins (paragraph [0029]). Suzuki does not disclose an amount of silicon oil as a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency added to the adhesion layer such that the structure can effectively perform its intended use; therefore, Suzuki meets the limitation.
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
In response to Applicant’s amendments, the grounds of rejection are altered to address Applicant’s amendments. Further, Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant contends that the prior art references of record fail to teach “a reconstituting the adhesion layer is a urethane resin not containing a silicon oil as a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency”.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as the prior art references suggest an adhesion layer composed of a urethane resin and not containing a silicon oil as a component causing the resin to exhibit liquid repellency as cited above.
Conclusion
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 05/27/2026
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights