DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 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 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, 3-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2000000951 A cited in IDS) in view of Tomomatsu et al. (US 2017/0095993 A1 cited in IDS) and Nagate et al. (US 2007/0026319 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Takahashi are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 17 and 19, Takahashi et al. disclose a laminate comprising a base material 1, an ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), a pattern layer 3 and a surface protective layer 4 (see Abstract and Figure). Each of the ionizing curable resin layer, the pattern layer and the surface protective layer contain an ionizing curable resin, an ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer and a polymerization inhibitor (see paragraphs 0011, 0012). The pattern layer and the surface protective layer together read on a protective film comprising a protective substrate layer (surface protective layer) and an adhesive surface/layer (pattern layer). Accordingly, the hard coat layer (ionizing radiation curable resin layer) and pattern layer are in direct contact with each other.
The ionizing curable resin can be polyolefin resin (see paragraph 0013). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer can be acrylic resin (i.e. resin having a (meth)acryloyl group or a (meth)acrylate backbone) (see paragraph 0014). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer reads on an active-energy curable resin. The polymerization inhibitor can be quinone-based compound such as hydroquinone or nitrogen-containing compound such as phenylhydroxyamine (see paragraph 0017). The amount of ionizing curable resin is 100 parts by weight, the amount of the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer is 10 to 50 parts by weight and the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.05 to 0.5 parts by weight (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.045 to 0.33 wt% (0.045 = 0.05/110.05 x 100 and 0.33 = 0.5/150.5 x 100).
The ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer) comprising the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer such as acrylic resin and 0.045 to 0.33 wt% of polymerization inhibitor reads on hard coat layer that is UV curable as presently claimed.
The pattern layer 3 (adhesive surface/layer) comprising the ionizing curable resin such as polyolefin resin reads on adhesive surface/layer as presently claimed. Based on aforementioned amounts, the amount of the ionizing curable resin (polyolefin resin) is 66 to 91 wt% (66 = 100/150.5 x 100 and 91 = 100/110.05 x 100). As evidenced by the present specification, the protective layer can be a two-layer protective film consisting of an adhesive layer that makes direct contact with a hard coat layer and a substrate, wherein the adhesive layer comprises 80 wt% or more of polyolefin resin (see paragraphs 0201, 0209 and 0210 of published application). Given that the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi comprises 66 to 91 wt% of polyolefin that overlaps with the amount of polyolefin in adhesive layer of present application, the adhesive surface of pattern layer 3 of Takahashi would be identical to the adhesive surface of adhesive layer of present application. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that an adhesive surface of the pattern layer of Takahashi has a surface energy as presently claimed. Further, there is no disclosure of any roughness on the adhesive surface of the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi. Therefore, the adhesive surface of the protective film has a surface roughness of 0.
Accordingly, the pattern layer and surface protective layer together (protective film) of Takahashi is identical to the protective film comprising two layers as presently claimed. Therefore, given that the protective film of Takahashi is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the protective film is peelable from the laminate, absent evidence to the contrary.
Takahashi discloses to prepare the laminate, a transfer film comprising a pattern layer 3, the surface protective layer 4 and a release film is prepared (see paragraph 0019). Then, the transfer film is laminated on the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2, followed by irradiating the whole laminate with ionizing radiation (UV curable) to cure the ionizing curable resin in each layer and separating the release layer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0019). Accordingly, each layer containing the ionizing curable resin such as the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), the pattern layer 3 (adhesive layer) and the surface protective layer 4 (protective substrate layer) is post-cured layer.
Further, Takahashi et al. disclose when thermoforming such as embossing or vacuum forming is performed in an uncured state, a polymerization inhibitor is added to prevent curing during heat processing (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, Takahashi et al. disclose the laminate can be a thermoformable laminate.
While Takahashi disclose the substrate can be a synthetic resin (see paragraph 0010), Takahashi et al. do not disclose the substrate comprises a thermoplastic resin as presently claimed. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Tomomatsu et al. disclose a hard coat layer on a transparent-resin film layer that serves as a transparent film substrate for forming the hard coat layer (see Abstract and paragraph 0096). The transparent film substrate can be aromatic polycarbonate film, acrylic film or a laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film) (see paragraphs 0096, 0099, 0100). These films provide high transparency (see paragraph 0096 and 0101). The aromatic polycarbonate can be bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate (see paragraph 0111). The poly(meth)acrylic imide resin provides high transparency, high surface hardness, high rigidity and excellent heat resistance and dimensional stability (see paragraph 0101).
In light of motivation for using transparent film substrate such laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film), wherein aromatic polycarbonate is bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate as disclosed by Tomomatsu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use transparent film substrate such laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film), wherein aromatic polycarbonate is bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate as the substrate in Takahashi in order to provides high transparency, high surface hardness, high rigidity and excellent heat resistance and dimensional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. in view of Tomomatsu et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Nagate et al. disclose a polymerization inhibitor such as N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine improve storage stability (see paragraph 0089).
In light of motivation for using a polymerization inhibitor such as N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine disclosed by Nagate et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine as the polymerization inhibitor in Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. in order to improve storage stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. and Nagate et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Further, Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less can be added to keep the transparency of the hard coat layer and to improve surface hardness of the hard coat layer (see paragraphs 0084, 0085, 0086 and 0089). The inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less read on nanoparticles.
In light of motivation for using inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less disclosed by Tomomatsu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm (i.e. nanoparticles) in the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in order to improve transparency and surface hardness of the ionizing radiation curable resin layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. and Nagate et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Further, Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as leveling agents (see paragraph 0084).
Therefore, as taught by Tomomatsu et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to add leveling agent to the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in order to improve leveling properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2000000951 A cited in IDS) in view of Tomomatsu et al. (US 2017/0095993 A1 cited in IDS) and Kobori et al. (JP 2015229682 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Takahashi are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS) and the disclosures of Kobori et al. are based on a machine translation which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-13, 17, 19 and 21, Takahashi et al. disclose a laminate comprising a base material 1, an ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), a pattern layer 3 and a surface protective layer 4 (see Abstract and Figure). Each of the ionizing curable resin layer, the pattern layer and the surface protective layer contain an ionizing curable resin, an ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer and a polymerization inhibitor (see paragraphs 0011, 0012). The pattern layer and the surface protective layer together read on a protective film comprising a protective substrate layer (surface protective layer) and an adhesive surface/layer (pattern layer). Accordingly, the hard coat layer (ionizing radiation curable resin layer) and pattern layer are in direct contact with each other.
The ionizing curable resin can be polyolefin resin (see paragraph 0013). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer can be acrylic resin (i.e. resin having a (meth)acryloyl group or a (meth)acrylate backbone) (see paragraph 0014). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer reads on an active-energy curable resin. The polymerization inhibitor can be quinone-based compound such as hydroquinone or nitrogen-containing compound such as phenylhydroxyamine (see paragraph 0017). The amount of ionizing curable resin is 100 parts by weight, the amount of the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer is 10 to 50 parts by weight and the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.05 to 0.5 parts by weight (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.045 to 0.33 wt% (0.045 = 0.05/110.05 x 100 and 0.33 = 0.5/150.5 x 100).
The ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer) comprising the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer such as acrylic resin and 0.045 to 0.33 wt% of polymerization inhibitor reads on hard coat layer that is UV curable as presently claimed.
The pattern layer 3 (adhesive surface/layer) comprising the ionizing curable resin such as polyolefin resin reads on adhesive surface/layer as presently claimed. Based on aforementioned amounts, the amount of the ionizing curable resin (polyolefin resin) is 66 to 91 wt% (66 = 100/150.5 x 100 and 91 = 100/110.05 x 100). As evidenced by the present specification, the protective layer can be a two-layer protective film consisting of an adhesive layer that makes direct contact with a hard coat layer and a substrate, wherein the adhesive layer comprises 80 wt% or more of polyolefin resin (see paragraphs 0201, 0209 and 0210 of published application). Given that the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi comprises 66 to 91 wt% of polyolefin that overlaps with the amount of polyolefin in adhesive layer of present application, the adhesive surface of pattern layer 3 of Takahashi would be identical to the adhesive surface of adhesive layer of present application. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that an adhesive surface of the pattern layer of Takahashi has a surface energy as presently claimed. Further, there is no disclosure of any roughness on the adhesive surface of the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi. Therefore, the adhesive surface of the protective film has a surface roughness of 0.
Accordingly, the pattern layer and surface protective layer together (protective film) of Takahashi is identical to the protective film comprising two layers as presently claimed. Therefore, given that the protective film of Takahashi is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the protective film is peelable from the laminate, absent evidence to the contrary.
Takahashi discloses to prepare the laminate, a transfer film comprising a pattern layer 3, the surface protective layer 4 and a release film is prepared (see paragraph 0019). Then, the transfer film is laminated on the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2, followed by irradiating the whole laminate with ionizing radiation (UV curable) to cure the ionizing curable resin in each layer and separating the release layer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0019). Accordingly, each layer containing the ionizing curable resin such as the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), the pattern layer 3 (adhesive layer) and the surface protective layer 4 (protective substrate layer) is post-cured layer.
Further, Takahashi et al. disclose when thermoforming such as embossing or vacuum forming is performed in an uncured state, a polymerization inhibitor is added to prevent curing during heat processing (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, Takahashi et al. disclose the laminate can be a thermoformable laminate.
While Takahashi disclose the substrate can be a synthetic resin (see paragraph 0010), Takahashi et al. do not disclose the substrate comprises a thermoplastic resin as presently claimed. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Tomomatsu et al. disclose a hard coat layer on a transparent-resin film layer that serves as a transparent film substrate for forming the hard coat layer (see Abstract and paragraph 0096). The transparent film substrate can be aromatic polycarbonate film, acrylic film or a laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film) (see paragraphs 0096, 0099, 0100). These films provide high transparency (see paragraph 0096 and 0101). The aromatic polycarbonate can be bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate (see paragraph 0111). The poly(meth)acrylic imide resin provides high transparency, high surface hardness, high rigidity and excellent heat resistance and dimensional stability (see paragraph 0101).
In light of motivation for using transparent film substrate such laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film), wherein aromatic polycarbonate is bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate as disclosed by Tomomatsu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use transparent film substrate such laminate of poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film)/aromatic polycarbonate film/ poly(meth)acrylic imide resin film (i.e. acrylic resin film), wherein aromatic polycarbonate is bisphenol-A-based polycarbonate as the substrate in Takahashi in order to provides high transparency, high surface hardness, high rigidity and excellent heat resistance and dimensional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. in view of Tomomatsu et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Kobori et al. disclose a polymerization inhibitor such as 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (i.e. 2-hydroxynaphthoquinone) improve storage stability (see paragraph 0069).
In light of motivation for using a polymerization inhibitor such as 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone disclosed by Kobori et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone as the polymerization inhibitor in Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. in order to improve storage stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. and Kobori et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Further, Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less can be added to keep the transparency of the hard coat layer and to improve surface hardness of the hard coat layer (see paragraphs 0084, 0085, 0086 and 0089). The inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less read on nanoparticles.
In light of motivation for using inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less disclosed by Tomomatsu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm (i.e. nanoparticles) in the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in order to improve transparency and surface hardness of the ionizing radiation curable resin layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Tomomatsu et al. and Kobori et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Further, Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as leveling agents (see paragraph 0084).
Therefore, as taught by Tomomatsu et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to add leveling agent to the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in order to improve leveling properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 17, 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2000000951 A cited in IDS) in view of Kouno et al. (WO 2018/056420 A1) and Nagate et al. (US 2007/0026319 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Takahashi are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS). It is noted that when utilizing Kouno et al. the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2019/0203031 A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Kouno et al. are found in US ‘031.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 8-12, 17, 19, 22 and 23, Takahashi et al. disclose a laminate comprising a base material 1, an ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), a pattern layer 3 and a surface protective layer 4 (see Abstract and Figure). Each of the ionizing curable resin layer, the pattern layer and the surface protective layer contain an ionizing curable resin, an ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer and a polymerization inhibitor (see paragraphs 0011, 0012). The pattern layer and the surface protective layer together read on a protective film comprising a protective substrate layer (surface protective layer) and an adhesive surface/layer (pattern layer). Accordingly, the hard coat layer (ionizing radiation curable resin layer) and pattern layer are in direct contact with each other.
The ionizing curable resin can be polyolefin resin (see paragraph 0013). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer can be acrylic resin (i.e. resin having a (meth)acryloyl group or a (meth)acrylate backbone) (see paragraph 0014). The ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer reads on an active-energy curable resin. The polymerization inhibitor can be quinone-based compound such as hydroquinone or nitrogen-containing compound such as phenylhydroxyamine (see paragraph 0017). The amount of ionizing curable resin is 100 parts by weight, the amount of the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer is 10 to 50 parts by weight and the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.05 to 0.5 parts by weight (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, the amount of the polymerization inhibitor is 0.045 to 0.33 wt% (0.045 = 0.05/110.05 x 100 and 0.33 = 0.5/150.5 x 100).
The ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer) comprising the ionizing radiation-reactive plasticizer such as acrylic resin and 0.045 to 0.33 wt% of polymerization inhibitor reads on hard coat layer that is UV curable as presently claimed.
The pattern layer 3 (adhesive surface/layer) comprising the ionizing curable resin such as polyolefin resin reads on adhesive surface/layer as presently claimed. Based on aforementioned amounts, the amount of the ionizing curable resin (polyolefin resin) is 66 to 91 wt% (66 = 100/150.5 x 100 and 91 = 100/110.05 x 100). As evidenced by the present specification, the protective layer can be a two-layer protective film consisting of an adhesive layer that makes direct contact with a hard coat layer and a substrate, wherein the adhesive layer comprises 80 wt% or more of polyolefin resin (see paragraphs 0201, 0209 and 0210 of published application). Given that the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi comprises 66 to 91 wt% of polyolefin that overlaps with the amount of polyolefin in adhesive layer of present application, the adhesive surface of pattern layer 3 of Takahashi would be identical to the adhesive surface of adhesive layer of present application. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that an adhesive surface of the pattern layer of Takahashi has a surface energy as presently claimed. Further, there is no disclosure of any roughness on the adhesive surface of the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi. Therefore, the adhesive surface of the protective film has a surface roughness of 0.
Accordingly, the pattern layer and surface protective layer together (protective film) of Takahashi is identical to the protective film comprising two layers as presently claimed. Therefore, given that the protective film of Takahashi is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the protective film is peelable from the laminate, absent evidence to the contrary.
Takahashi discloses to prepare the laminate, a transfer film comprising a pattern layer 3, the surface protective layer 4 and a release film is prepared (see paragraph 0019). Then, the transfer film is laminated on the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2, followed by irradiating the whole laminate with ionizing radiation (UV curable) to cure the ionizing curable resin in each layer and separating the release layer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0007, 0019). Accordingly, each layer containing the ionizing curable resin such as the ionizing radiation curable resin layer 2 (hard coat layer), the pattern layer 3 (adhesive layer) and the surface protective layer 4 (protective substrate layer) is post-cured layer.
Further, Takahashi et al. disclose when thermoforming such as embossing or vacuum forming is performed in an uncured state, a polymerization inhibitor is added to prevent curing during heat processing (see paragraph 0012). Accordingly, Takahashi et al. disclose the laminate can be a thermoformable laminate.
While Takahashi disclose the substrate can be a synthetic resin (see paragraph 0010), Takahashi et al. do not disclose the substrate comprises a thermoplastic resin as presently claimed. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Kouno et al. disclose a resin composition capable of forming a molded body that has excellent surface hardness, transparency, hue and weather resistance, while exhibiting excellent wet heat resistance (see Abstract). The resin composition comprises a (meth)acrylic copolymer (acrylic resin) and a polycarbonate-based resin (see Abstract). The polycarbonate-based resin contains a carbonate bond in the main chain of the molecule, i.e., it has –[O-R-OCO]- unit, wherein R is any of an aliphatic group, an aromatic group, and both aliphatic and aromatic groups (see paragraph 0183). A specific example of the polycarbonate-based resin includes aromatic polycarbonate obtained from bisphenol A (see paragraph 0183). The viscosity-average molecular weight of the polycarbonate-based resin is 15,000 to 30,000 (see paragraph 0184).
In light of motivation for using a resin composition comprising an acrylic resin and a polycarbonate-based resin disclosed by Kouno et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the resin composition of Kouno et al. to prepare the substrate in Takahashi et al. in order to provide excellent surface hardness, transparency, hue and weather resistance, while exhibiting excellent wet heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. While Takahashi et al. disclose the polymerization inhibitor, Takahashi et al. in view of Kouno et al. do not disclose the polymerization inhibitor as presently claimed.
Nagate et al. disclose a polymerization inhibitor such as N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine improve storage stability (see paragraph 0089).
In light of motivation for using a polymerization inhibitor such as N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine disclosed by Nagate et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine as the polymerization inhibitor in Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. in order to improve storage stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2000000951 A cited in IDS) in view of Kouno et al. (WO 2018/056420 A1) and Nagate et al. (US 2007/0026319 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tomomatsu et al. (US 2017/0095993 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. do not disclose the hard coat layer comprises nanoparticles.
Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less can be added to keep the transparency of the hard coat layer and to improve surface hardness of the hard coat layer (see paragraphs 0084, 0085, 0086 and 0089). The inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less read on nanoparticles. The hard coat can be applied to a transparent substrate comprising aromatic polycarbonate resin (see paragraph 0096).
In light of motivation for using inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm or less disclosed by Tomomatsu et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 300 nm (i.e. nanoparticles) in the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. in order to improve transparency and surface hardness of the ionizing radiation curable resin layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. disclose the thermoformable laminate as set forth above. Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. do not disclose the hard coat layer comprises a leveling agent.
Tomomatsu et al. disclose the hard coat can comprise additives such as leveling agents (see paragraph 0084). The hard coat can be applied to a transparent substrate comprising aromatic polycarbonate resin (see paragraph 0096).
Therefore, as taught by Tomomatsu et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to add leveling agent to the ionizing radiation curable resin layer (hard coat layer) of Takahashi in view of Kouno et al. and Nagate et al. in order to improve leveling properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicant argues that Takahashi's pattern layer cannot reasonably be regarded as the equivalent to the adhesive layer of the protective film according to claim 1 for at least the following reasons. The "adhesive layer" recited in claim 1 is a layer inherently associated with the peelability of the protective film from the hard coat layer, and is a layer designed to temporarily adhere to the hard coat layer with a predetermined holding force while being removable therefrom when necessary. However, the pattern layer of Takahashi is a layer intended for pattern formation and is not designed for the purpose of controlling adhesion to the hard coat layer.
However, although the pattern layer is used for a different purpose than the claimed adhesive layer, as evidenced by the present specification, the protective layer can be a two-layer protective film consisting of an adhesive layer that makes direct contact with a hard coat layer and a substrate, wherein the adhesive layer comprises 80 wt% or more of polyolefin resin (see paragraphs 0201, 0209 and 0210 of published application). Given that the pattern layer 3 of Takahashi comprises 66 to 91 wt% of polyolefin that overlaps with the amount of polyolefin in adhesive layer of present application, the adhesive surface of pattern layer 3 of Takahashi would be identical to the adhesive surface of adhesive layer of present application. Therefore, the pattern layer reads on adhesive layer absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that the Office Action appears to conclude that Takahashi's pattern layer corresponds to the adhesive layer of the protective film in the present invention because Takahashi's pattern layer contains a polyolefin resin in a certain ratio. However, whether a layer constitutes a peelable adhesive layer relative to a hard coat layer depends on whether it satisfies various performance requirements, such as peel strength relative to the hard coat layer, absence of adhesive residue, and absence of adverse effects on the appearance of the hard coat layer after peeling. Such characteristics cannot be derived merely from the disclosure that the layer contains a polyolefin resin in a certain ratio.
However, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the pattern layer of Takahashi being unable to function as the claimed adhesive layer must be supported by a declaration or affidavit.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) reading Takahashi would understand that Takahashi's ionizing radiation-curable resin layer 2 and the pattern layer 3 cannot be peeled from each other at their interface. Takahashi is directed to providing a "decorative material having both high surface hardness and high internal hardness" (Takahashi at, e.g., paragraph [0004]). In order to achieve high surface hardness, it is necessary that the outermost surface protective layer 4 not be peeled away. Likewise, in order for the article to function as a decorative material, the pattern layer must not peel away-in this regard, Applicant points out that Takahashi requires that in use, the substrate must be visible through the pattern layer (Takahashi at, e.g., paragraphs [0007] and [0019] to [0023]). Therefore, it would be apparent to a POSA that if the ionizing radiation-curable resin layer 2 and the pattern layer 3 were peelable at their interface, the Takahashi's article could not function as a decorative material, and would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (MPEP 2143.01). In other words, because Takahashi is directed to a decorative material in which a substrate is visible through an overlaid pattern, the ionizing radiation-curable resin layer 2 and the pattern layer 3 are not intended to peel from each other at their interface, and if Takahashi were modified to enable such peeling, Takahashi's article would fail to achieve its intended purpose.
However, the present claims do not require that the protective layer is actually peeled away only that it is peelable. The present claims require a laminate comprising a substrate layer, hard coat layer, and protective film not a laminate where the protective film has been peeled away. Therefore, although the pattern layer and surface protective layer of Takahashi are not peeled away, Takahashi meets the present claims which only require the protective film to be “peelable” and Takahashi would still be able achieve its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights