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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al (JP2012250459A). Shioda is read from an English machine translation located in the Application File.
With regards to claim 1, Shioda discloses a decorative material in the form of a multilayer film (i.e., a decorative sheet) comprising a substrate P, a colored layer 104 (i.e., picture layer), and a surface transparent layer 106 formed of a resin (i.e., transparent resin layer), laminated in order from bottom to top (i.e., the decorative sheet comprising the picture layer and the transparent resin layer at least in a stated order on one side of the substrate) (Shioda – Translation: Section titled “ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION,” including the sentences “Hereinafter, the present invention.... and a primer”; page 3, the third paragraph, “(3) Surface transparent layer.... From the viewpoint of embossing”; Fig. 1). Note that the phrase “at least in a stated order” does not actually state the order required, nor does it preclude the existence of intervening layers. The colored layer 104 is depicted as having regions with and without depressions which face the surface opposite the substrate, and the surface transparent layer 106 further has depressions located over the depressions of the colored layer 104 and also facing the surface opposite the substrate (i.e., the picture layer includes a characteristic part, which is a region with depressions D2, and a non-characteristic part, which is a region without depressions, and the transparent resin layer has depressions D1 which are harmonizing, or in other words, overlapping, with the characteristic part of the picture layer on a side opposite to a side facing the picture layer, the depressions D2 depicted in a lamination direction of the depressions D1 on a side opposite to a side facing the substrate) (Shioda: Fig. 1). The depressions of the surface transparent layer 106 are further depicted as having a greater depth than the depressions of the colored layer 104 (i.e., the depressions D1 have a depth H greater than a depth h of the depressions D2) (Shioda: Fig. 1). With regards to the claimed picture layer thickness, Shioda discloses its colored layer 104 (i.e., picture layer) as having a thickness of 0.01 to 30 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 microns, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (Shioda: page 3, “From the viewpoint of the effect of the present invention…”). See MPEP 2144.05. In the interest of compact prosecution and in an alternative, Shioda teaches that the embossing depth of the laminated film 10 of the present invention is 30% to 100% of its thickness, and given that the base concealing layer has a thickness of 50 to 300 microns, in the event that the picture layer is construed as a combination of both the colored layer 104 and concealing layer 102, the combination of these layers has a thickness range of 330 microns or less (i.e., 30 microns + 300 microns = 330 microns; the thickness is unbounded below as the embossing depth includes 100% of the film thickness), which would establish a separate case of overlapping ranges (Shioda: page 2, “Further the thickness of the base concealing layer 102…”; page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth of the laminated film 10…”).
With regards to claim 2, Shioda discloses a decorative sheet as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Shioda does not appear to explicitly disclose a ratio (h/H) of the depth h of the depression D2 to the depth H of the depression D1 of 0.25 or more and 0.60 or less as claimed. However, Shioda teaches that the depths of its depressions are adjustable via embossing (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). In particular, Shioda teaches that excessively low embossing depths prevent transparency and a synchronized design feeling, while excessive depths can lead to hole formation (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). Shioda further depicts a ratio of embossing depths which, as best understood, appears consistent with the presently claimed range (i.e., the ratio h/H can be estimated to be slightly less than 0.5 from Figure 1 of Shioda) (Shioda: Fig. 1). Based on the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the ratio h/H for the decorative sheet of Shioda, in order to provide a balance of transparency, design feeling, and structural integrity (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have tended towards values within the claimed depth range based on the depths depicted in Figure 1 of Shioda (Shioda: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 4, the depressions (i.e., characteristic parts) are depicted as having a trench-shape (i.e., the shape of a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1). Alternatively, the depressions of the colored layer 104 contain the material of surface transparent layer 106 (i.e., and therefore, they function as a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 6, Shioda further discloses its decorative sheet as adhered to a stainless-steel plate via an adhesive (i.e., the decorative sheet is placed on adherend to form a decorative panel) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “(2) Coating processability on the back side…. by applying an adhesive…. and applying it to a stainless steel plate…”).
With regards to claim 10, the depressions (i.e., characteristic parts) are depicted as having a trench-shape (i.e., the shape of a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1). Alternatively, the depressions of the colored layer 104 contain the material of surface transparent layer 106 (i.e., and therefore, they function as a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 16, Shioda further discloses its decorative sheet as adhered to a stainless-steel plate via an adhesive (i.e., the decorative sheet is placed on adherend to form a decorative panel) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “(2) Coating processability on the back side…. by applying an adhesive…. and applying it to a stainless steel plate…”).
With regards to claim 18, Shioda further discloses its decorative sheet as adhered to a stainless-steel plate via an adhesive (i.e., the decorative sheet is placed on adherend to form a decorative panel) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “(2) Coating processability on the back side…. by applying an adhesive…. and applying it to a stainless steel plate…”).
With regards to claim 21, Shioda does not appear to explicitly disclose a color difference ΔE between its characteristic part and its non-characteristic part of 1.3 or more. However, the present specification notes color difference ΔE as being dependent on the degree of lightness L* and the chromatic parameters a* and b*, and further, that the color difference leads to improvement of design properties (i.e., as best understood from the present specification, results in picture visibility). Shioda teaches that depressions accommodate a printed pattern (i.e., implies selective application of a material, such as ink, which produces a specific image which is contrasted against the remaining layers) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). Shioda further teaches L* affects brightness and picture visibility (Shioda – Translation: page 2, “ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION”; page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). As best understood from the present specification, the claimed color difference ΔE is indicative of a visible image, and as best understood from Shioda, the characteristic part is printed so as to produce a picture (i.e., a visible image) (Shioda – Translation: page 2, “ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION”; page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). In view of the foregoing, the structure of Shioda is expected to possess the claimed color difference ΔE (i.e., since, as best understood, both Shioda and the present specification enact selective printing to produce visible images, and therefore, their color differences ΔE, which are indicative of visible images, should be expected to be similar or overlap) (Shioda – Translation: page 2, “ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION”; page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”). Alternatively, Shioda acknowledges that L* and color (i.e., the parameters which determine color difference ΔE) are known to adjust in order to create a visible image, and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the color difference ΔE obvious to optimize (Shioda – Translation: page 2, “ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION”; page 3, “Moreover, the embossing depth…”).
Claims 3, 8-9, 11-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Ueno (WO2018062299A1). Ueno is read from its English Language equivalent US 2021/0283879 A1.
With regards to claim 3, Shioda discloses a decorative sheet as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Shioda does not appear to disclose the decorative sheet as further comprising a surface protective layer on a side opposite to a side facing the picture layer of the transparent resin layer.
Ueno is directed to a decorative sheet comprising a surface-protecting layer 16 located above a resin layer 14 on a side opposite a decorative layer 12 (i.e., the surface-protecting layer of Ueno is on a side opposite to a side facing a picture layer of the transparent resin layer) (Ueno: para. [0013]; Fig. 2). Ueno further depicts its surface-protecting layer as including a plurality of concave parts 19 which coincide with respective concave parts of adjacent layers (i.e., the structure of the surface-protecting layer of Ueno is analogous in design to the individual layers of the decorative sheet of Shioda) (Ueno: Fig. 2). Ueno notes that its surface-protecting layer 16 is designed to prevent expansion of minute cracks which form during long-term use of its decorative sheet, thereby preventing advancement of deterioration (Ueno: para. [0011]). Shioda and Ueno are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of decorative sheets comprising which include layers with synchronized concave portions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the surface-protecting layer of Ueno to the transparent resin layer of Shioda on a side opposite its picture layer in order to prevent the expansion of minute cracks which form during use, thereby reducing the rate of deterioration of the decorative sheet (Ueno: para. [0011]).
With regards to claim 8, Ueno depicts its surface-protecting layer as having depressions w formed on a side opposite to a side facing the transparent resin layer in a lamination direction of the depression of the adjacent color layers (Ueno: Fig. 2). Ueno further depicts the depressions as having a depth which is greater than a depth of any other depressions within the other layers of its laminate (i.e., a D5 being the greatest depth within the laminate) (Ueno: Fig. 2). Ueno teaches such a structure as resulting in a laminate having “excellent texture” (Ueno: para. [0120]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a depth D5 to be the greatest depth (i.e., and therefore, larger than the depth D1) in order to provide an improved textural feel to the formed laminate (Ueno: para. [0120]; Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 9, Shioda discloses a decorative sheet as applied to claim 2 above (see above discussion). Shioda does not appear to disclose the decorative sheet as further comprising a surface protective layer on a side opposite to a side facing the picture layer of the transparent resin layer.
Ueno is directed to a decorative sheet comprising a surface-protecting layer 16 located above a resin layer 14 on a side opposite a decorative layer 12 (i.e., the surface-protecting layer of Ueno is on a side opposite to a side facing a picture layer of the transparent resin layer) (Ueno: para. [0013]; Fig. 2). Ueno further depicts its surface-protecting layer as including a plurality of concave parts 19 which coincide with respective concave parts of adjacent layers (i.e., the structure of the surface-protecting layer of Ueno is analogous in design to the individual layers of the decorative sheet of Shioda) (Ueno: Fig. 2). Ueno notes that its surface-protecting layer 16 is designed to prevent expansion of minute cracks which form during long-term use of its decorative sheet, thereby preventing advancement of deterioration (Ueno: para. [0011]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the surface-protecting layer of Ueno to the transparent resin layer of Shioda on a side opposite its picture layer in order to prevent the expansion of minute cracks which form during use, thereby reducing the rate of deterioration of the decorative sheet (Ueno: para. [0011]).
With regards to claim 11, the depressions (i.e., characteristic parts) are depicted as having a trench-shape (i.e., the shape of a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1). Alternatively, the depressions of the colored layer 104 contain the material of surface transparent layer 106 (i.e., and therefore, they function as a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 12, the depressions (i.e., characteristic parts) are depicted as having a trench-shape (i.e., the shape of a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1). Alternatively, the depressions of the colored layer 104 contain the material of surface transparent layer 106 (i.e., and therefore, they function as a vessel) (Shioda: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 17, Shioda further discloses its decorative sheet as adhered to a stainless-steel plate via an adhesive (i.e., the decorative sheet is placed on adherend to form a decorative panel) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “(2) Coating processability on the back side…. by applying an adhesive…. and applying it to a stainless steel plate…”).
With regards to claim 20, Shioda further discloses its decorative sheet as adhered to a stainless-steel plate via an adhesive (i.e., the decorative sheet is placed on adherend to form a decorative panel) (Shioda – Translation: page 3, “(2) Coating processability on the back side…. by applying an adhesive…. and applying it to a stainless steel plate…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of the base concealing layer 102 and colored layer 104 of Shioda must have a thickness of at least 50 microns (i.e., Shioda teaches away from a base concealing layer 102 which is higher than 50 microns). Applicant appears to conclude that Shioda teaches away from a picture layer within the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 microns. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The previous grounds of rejection mapped the colored layer 104 Shioda to the claimed picture layer, and Shioda discloses its colored layer 104 as having a thickness of 0.01 to 30 microns, overlapping Applicant’s claimed range. As best understood, the base concealing layer 102 of Shioda need not be a part of a picture layer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “picture layer” in light of the present specification. In support, paragraph [0043] of the present specification appears to define the picture layer as “a layer for imparting decorativeness to the decorative sheet 10,” and paragraph [0044] of the present specification notes that “the picture layer 2 may be, for example, a design layer formed by printing various patterns using ink and a printer, or a layer combining a hiding layer and a design layer.” Therefore, a colored layer alone is considered a picture layer, as it imparts decorativeness, and the present specification does not require it to include a hiding layer and a design layer. Alternatively, Shioda is found to teach an embossing depth of 30% to 100% through its laminate – even if, hypothetically, the combination of base concealing layer 102 and colored layer 104 were used to meet the claimed picture layer, an overlapping thickness range would still result (i.e., as the thickness of at least 50 microns taught by Shioda does not account for areas of lower thickness due to embossing).
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783