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 .
This Office Action in in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 11/6/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018/199213 to Funazaki et al. in view of JPH04285654 to Hasegawa et al. For the purposes of examination, citations for Funazaki and Hasegawa are taken from a machine translation incorporated herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Funazaki teaches a methacrylic resin composition (MR) comprising methacrylic resin (IV) in an amount of 5-80% [0027] (reading on 10-99 parts of (A)), wherein Resin (IV) is a homopolymer including MMA [0028] wherein the content of MMA (methyl methacrylic acid) is preferably 98% or more and may be 100% by mass [0028] (reading on 95% or more). Funazaki further teaches that the resin composition (MR) comprises 95-20% by mass SMA resin [0027] (reading on 90-1 part of (B)) wherein the SMA resin comprises 1-35% of an methacrylic acid ester monomer, preferably MMA [0033] (reading on 5-95 mass% of formula (b1) wherein Rb1 is a methyl group and Rb2 is a methyl group) and comprises 1-35% of phenyl methacrylate [0033] (reading on 5-95 % of aromatic (meth)acrylate represented by formula (b21) wherein Rb21 is a methyl group and nb1 is 0). Funazaki teaches the resin composition (MR) is made of two components such as (IV) and SMA resin [0027] thereby reading on (A) and (B) is 90 mass% or more in the resin composition. Funazaki teaches the SMA resin is a copolymer containing aromatic vinyl compounds (II) which corresponds to the additional monomer [0032].
Funazaki does not particularly teach additional monomer in the claimed amount of 0-20 mass%.
However, Hasegawa also teaches a methacrylic resin compostion [title] comprising 10-90 parts of a copolymer (A) [Abstract] with no specific order of monomer addition during polymerization [0021] reading on 90 to 1 part by mass of a random copolymer (B); comprising a monomer composition of 50-90 wt% methyl methacrylate [abstract] reading on 5 to 95 mass% of a (meth)acrylate represented by the formula (b1) wherein Rb1 is a methyl group and Rb2 is a methyl group; 50-10% of a methacrylic acid ester [abstract] such as phenyl methacrylate [0010] reading on an 5-95% aromatic (meth)acrylate and formula (b-2) wherein Rb21 is a methyl group and nb1 is 0; and 0-20wt% of other copolymerizable vinyl monomers [Abstract] reading on 0 to 20 mass% additional monomer (b-3). Hasegawa and Funazaki are from the same field of endeavor, namely methyl methacrylate based compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Funazaki’s SMA with Hasegawa’s copolymer, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Funazaki with Hasegawa is that Hasegawa’s copolymer contributes excellent optical properties, well balanced mechanical strength, and compatibility with methyl methacrylate based polymers [0009]. Furthermore Hasegawa states that if the amount of addition monomer exceeds 20% by weight, this is undersirable since it leads to a decrease in heat resistance and mechanical properties [0010].
Regarding Claim 4, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1, wherein (b1) is methyl methacrylate [Hasegawa, abstract].
Regarding Claim 5, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1, wherein (b21) is phenyl methacrylate [Hasegawa, 0010].
Regarding Claim 7, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1, that can further comprise benzyl methacrylate [Hasegawa ,0012], reading on formula (b22) wherein Rb23 is a methyl group and Rb24 is an aromatic ring, and nb2 is 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1 wherein (b1) is 50-90 wt% methyl methacrylate [Hasegawa, abstract] reading on 40-85 mass%.
Regarding Claim 14, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1 comprising an antioxidant in an amount of 0.01 to 1 parts [0040] reading on 0.001 to 0.5 parts.
Regarding Claim 15, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1 comprising a mold release agent in an amount of 0.01 to 1 parts [0040] reading on 0.001 to 0.5 parts.
Regarding Claim 16 and 17, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is made into a resin plate [0001] at a thickness of 20-200µm [0050] reading on a plate having a thickness of 5-10,000 µm.
Though the prior art thickness range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the plate shaped molded article of claim 16 wherein a methacrylic resin containing layer that has been laminated on least one surface of a polycarbonate-containing layer [Abstract].
Regarding claim 20, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the plate shaped molded article of claim 16 including a cured scratch-resistant layer that provides hard coat properties [0006] reading on a hard coat layer on the plate shaped molded article and/or base material.
Regarding claim 21, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the plate shaped molded article of claim 20, further comprising a low reflective cured film [0053] reading on an anti-reflection layer on the hard coat layer.
Regarding claim 22, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the plate shaped molded article of claim 18, including a low reflective cured coating [0053] reading on a multilayered article including an anti-glare treatment.
Regarding claim 23, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the plate shaped molded article of claim 18, wherein the cured coating can function as a low-reflective layer for improving visibility [0053] reading on an anti-reflection film comprising the multilayered article.
Regarding Claim 24, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teach the resin composition of claim 1 wherein methacrylic resin (IV) can comprise preferably 5 mass% or less of other monomers [0030] such as methyl acrylate [0020] thereby reading on the structure of claim 24.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funazaki in view of Hasegawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20170327685 to Kouno et al. (as found on the IDS dated 8/5/2022).
Regarding Claim 8, Funazaki in view of Hasegawa teaches the resin composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Funazaki in view of Hasegawa do not teach an aromatic (meth)acrylate (b-2) comprises a (meth)acrylate represented by the formula (b23) (see below left) wherein RB25 is a hydrogen atom or a methyl group, nb3 is an integer of 1 to 4, RB26 is a substituent, at least one of RB26 is an aryl group and nb4 is an integer of 1 to 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
483
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Kouno teaches a resin composition comprising a polymer comprising a (meth)acrylate unit of formula (1) (see above right) wherein R1 is a hydrogen atom or methyl group [Kouno, 0023] reading on RB25 is a hydrogen atom or methyl group; m is an integer from 1 to 10 [Kouno, 0025] reading on an integer of 1 to 6; and R4 is preferably a phenyl group [Kouno, 0082] reading on an aryl group; and p is an integer of 0 to 4 [Kouno, 0026] reading on nb4 is an integer of 1 to 6. Funazaki, Hasegawa and Kouno are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely acrylic resin compositions.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Funazaki in view of Hasegawa monomer components with Kouno’s aromatic (meth)acrylate , thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
The motivation to modify Funazaki in view of Hasegawa with Kouno is to contribute to improvement in the transparency of molded objects [Kouno, 0077] which is desirable in Funazaki’s in view of Hasegawa’s composition [Funazaki, 0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Hasegawa expressly teaches away from combining its copolymer (B) with “methacrylic resin (IV)” in Funazaki, as Hasegawa shows in table 1, 2 and 4 that this combination has poor properties such as decreased moisture absorption, decreased compatibility, and increased haze.
In response, attention is directed to the rejection as set forth above, wherein Hasegawa is relied upon as a secondary reference to teach the additional monomer of random copolymer (B). Case law has held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hasegawa provides the motivation of choosing the additional monomer as set forth above thereby the combination of Funazaki in view of Hasegawa arrive at the claimed combination.
In further response, the tables of Hasegawa demonstrating poor properties are based on a polymer A-6 of Hasegawa. Case law wherein it has been held that a reference is considered for all that it teaches, not just the preferred examples. All the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963). Hasegawa is relied upon due to the teaching of the additional monomer (not the polymer A-6) and as such the arguments are not found to be convincing.
For these reasons, the arguments are not considered persuasive.
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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764