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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, and 17-25 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 have been cancelled.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 February 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 February 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 February 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 26 February 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, and 17-25 based upon Kusumoto et al. (WO 2019/092582 A1) under 35 U.S.C. §103 as set forth in the last Office action because:
Sample A of Sample Set 1, provides a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer having a thickness of 90 µm with an metal vapor deposition layer constituted of indium in a granular structure of unspecified thickness having an optical density of 1.1. Sample B of Sample Set 1, provides a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer, possessing 0.7 parts by mass less of thickener ACRYSOL RM-8W, having a thickness of 60 µm with an metal vapor deposition layer constituted of indium in a granular structure of unspecified thickness having an optical density of 1.1. (NOTE: Example 4, of the specification as filed, discloses a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer, having the same composition as Sample A of Sample Set 1, with a thickness of 60 µm but with a metal vapor deposition layer constituted of indium in a granular of unspecified thickness having an optical density of 1.7. The process of fabricating Sample A and Sample B involved knife coating the cover resin composition with drying at 60°C for 1 minute, 90°C for 1 minute, then 120°C for 1 minute to form a film with a thickness of 45 µm, followed by another knife coating of the composition with drying at 60°C for 1 minute, 90°C for 1 minute, 120°C for 1 minute, then 150°C for 1 minute to form a film with a thicknesses of 90 µm and 60 µm, respectively. However, the process of fabricating Example 4 involved knife coating the cover resin composition with drying at 60°C for 1 minute, 90°C for 1 minute, then 120°C for 1 minute to form a film with a thickness of 60 µm.) Sample Set 2 discloses that when the optical density is increased over 1.7 the performance (with respect to outgas resistance) is reduced. (Note: It is not elaborated as to the purpose of Sample Set 2, with regards to the inherency argument. At most it shows that the performance is reduced with higher optical densities greater than 1.7. For which, it is noted that Kusumoto discloses the optical density is preferred to be not less than approximately 0.8 and not greater than approximately 1.3 ([Pg. 10: li. 36 to Pg. 11: li. 9] of Kusumoto).)
Cover resin
Metal vapor deposition layer
Breaking Elongation (%)
thickness (µm)
thickener (part by mass)
thickness (µm)
Composition
Optical Density
20°C
160°C
Sample A
90
2.0
--
indium, granular
1.1
152
400
Sample B
60
1.3
--
indium, granular
1.1
100
140
Example 1
60
-
60
indium, granular
1.1
132
350
Example 2
90
-
90
indium, granular
1.1
183
412
Comparative Example 1
40
-
40
indium, granular
1.1
120
323
Example 4
60
2.0
--
indium, granular
1.7
135
362
The assertion in the declaration from the data of Sample A and Sample B, that a cover resin comprising a (meth)acryl and having a thickness of 50 µm or greater would not inherently possess a Breaking Elongation of 120% or more at 20°C and 350% or more at 160°C is not entirely persuasive. When compared to the closest example of the filed specification (Example 4), that there is a significant drop in breaking elongation associated to the forming and drying process of the cover resin and/or the optical density of the metal vapor deposition layer (e.g., about a 17% decrease at 20°C and about a 38% decrease at 160°C); which when evaluated in view of Sample Set 2 of the declaration can be inferred, in the broadest sense, that metal vapor deposition layers with an optical density of 1.7 have lower performance than those with a lower optical density (i.e., 1.1). Furthermore, the applicants showing of only one example, in which the compositions are not the same, is not considered to be a sufficient showing that a cover resin with a thickness of 50 µm or more would not inherently posses the claimed breaking elongation.
Therefore, in light of the applicants' arguments and declaration, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto et al. (WO 2019/092582 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 9, and 17: Kusumoto discloses a decorative film (ref. #10; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "decorative vapor deposition sheet") comprising, in order, an upper design layer (ref. #12; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "cover resin layer") having a surface layer (ref. #124) and first resin layer (ref. #122), a reflective layer (ref. #14; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "metal vapor deposition layer"), a lower design layer (ref. #16) having a pattern layer (ref. #164) and second resin layer (ref. #162), and an adhesive layer (ref. #18) (figure 1, [Pg. 4: li. 24-33], and [Pg. 10: li. 9-14] of Kusumoto). Kusumoto also discloses that the reflective layer can be a vapor-deposited layer that contains tin, indium, or a combination thereof, formed to have an optical density of approximately 0.7 to approximately 1.7, and in the form of a sea-island structure ([Pg. 9: li. 28-35], [Pg. 10: li. 9-10 and 36-37], and [Pg. 11: li. 10-14] of Kusumoto). Kusumoto further discloses that the first resin layer contains at least one thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting of polyurethanes, and (meth)acrylic resins ([Pg. 10: li. 23-25] of Kusumoto), that the surface layer can comprise (meth)acrylic resins, polyurethane, fluorine resins such as methyl methacrylate/vinylidene fluoride copolymers (PMMA/PVDF), or mixtures thereof ([Pg. 8: li. 1-11] of Kusumoto), and that the upper design layer can have a thickness of approximately 0.1 µm or more to approximately 300 µm or less without the surface layer, or a thickness of approximately 1 µm or more to approximately 200 µm or less ([Pg. 9: li. 14-27] of Kusumoto); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --50 micrometers or greater--. Kusumoto differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kusumoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. It is also disclosed by Kusumoto that a molded article (ref. #20; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "article") comprising the decorative film attached to a substrate (ref. #22) via the adhesive layer using a three-dimensional heat-stretching molding method (figure 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 6-17], [Pg. 4: li. 34 to Pg. 5: li. 2], and [Pg. 15: li. 15-18] of Kusumoto).
Kusumoto discloses the decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite --a breaking elongation of the decorative vapor deposition sheet at 20°C is 120% or greater, and a breaking elongation of the decorative vapor deposition sheet at 160°C is 350% or greater--. However, Kusumoto discloses a decorative vapor deposition sheet having the same cover resin layer and same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (e.g., a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer and a metal vapor deposition layer, wherein the cover resin layer comprises a (meth)acryl and has a thickness of 50 µm or greater, and the metal vapor deposition layer exhibits a granular structure; see (figures 1, 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 24 to Pg. 5: li. 2], [Pg. 5: li. 13-16], [Pg. 8: li. 1-14], [Pg. 9: li. 14-35], [Pg. 10: li. 9-10, 23-25, and 36-37], [Pg. 11: li. 10-14], [Pg. 15: li. 15-18], and [Pg. 19: li. 2-32]) of Kusumoto and ([0020], [0025], [0032], [0033], [0036], [0043], [0066]-[0067]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the Examiner that the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses a breaking elongation of 120% or greater at 20°C and a breaking elongation of 350% or greater at 160°C. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 2: Kusumoto discloses that the metal vapor deposition layer which exhibits a discontinuous configuration partially or entirely in the layer in the cross-sectional portion in the thickness direction ([Pg. 11: li. 12-14] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 3: Kusumoto discloses the claimed decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite that --a surface resistance value of the metal vapor deposition layer is 8.0 x 1010 Ω/□--. However, Kusumoto provides the same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (i.e., a metal vapor deposition layer exhibiting a granular structure (as explained above) and comprising indium and/or tin; see ([Pg. 9: li. 28-35], [Pg. 10: li. 36-37], and [Pg. 11: li. 12-14]) of Kusumoto and ([0041]-[0043], [0067], and [0068]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that the metal vapor deposition layer of the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses a surface resistance value of 8.0 x 1010 Ω/□ as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 4: Kusumoto discloses that the metal vapor deposition layer has an optical density of from 0.7 to 1.7 ([Pg. 10: li. 36-37] of Kusumoto); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1.0 to 1.9--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kusumoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6: Kusumoto discloses that the metal vapor deposition layer comprises at least one selected from indium and tin ([Pg. 9: li. 28-35] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 7: Kusumoto discloses an adhesive layer (ref. #18) disposed under the metal vapor deposition layer disposed under the cover resin layer (figure 1 and [Pg. 4: li. 24-33] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 8: Kusumoto discloses that the decorative vapor deposition sheet is used for a vacuum forming (figure 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 6-17], [Pg. 4: li. 34 to Pg. 5: li. 2], and [Pg. 15: li. 15-18] Kusumoto).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18: Kusumoto discloses that the article has a three-dimensional shape ([Pg. 15: li. 24-25] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 11: Kusumoto discloses a method of producing an article having a three-dimensional shape, the method comprising vacuum-forming after applying the decorative vapor deposition sheet to a substrate (figure 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 6-17], [Pg. 4: li. 34 to Pg. 5: li. 2], and [Pg. 15: li. 15-26] Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 14: Kusumoto discloses that the metal vapor layer is disposed directly on the cover resin layer (figure 1 and [Pg. 4: li. 24-33] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 19: Kusumoto discloses that the cover resin layer comprises at least one selected from urethane, polyvinylidene fluoride, and (meth)acryl ([Pg. 8: li. 1-11] and [Pg. 10: li. 23-25] of Kusumoto).
Regarding Claim 20: Kusumoto discloses that the metal vapor deposition layer has an optical density of from 0.7 to 1.7 ([Pg. 10: li. 36-37] of Kusumoto); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --1.2 or greater--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kusumoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 21: Kusumoto discloses that the cover resin layer can have a thickness of approximately 0.1 µm or more to approximately 300 µm or less, or a thickness of approximately 1 µm or more to approximately 200 µm or less ([Pg. 9: li. 14-27] of Kusumoto); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --80 micrometers or greater--. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kusumoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 22: Kusumoto discloses the claimed decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite that --a surface resistance value of the metal vapor deposition layer is 9.0 x 1010 Ω/□--. However, Kusumoto provides the same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (i.e., a metal vapor deposition layer exhibiting a granular structure (as explained above) and comprising indium and/or tin; see ([Pg. 9: li. 28-35], [Pg. 10: li. 36-37], and [Pg. 11: li. 12-14]) of Kusumoto and ([0041]-[0043], [0067], and [0068]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner, that the metal vapor deposition layer of the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses a surface resistance value of 9.0 x 1010 Ω/□ as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 23: Kusumoto discloses the decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite --the breaking elongation of the decorative vapor deposition sheet at 20°C is 130% or greater --. However, Kusumoto discloses a decorative vapor deposition sheet having the same cover resin layer and same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (e.g., a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer and a metal vapor deposition layer, wherein the cover resin layer comprises a (meth)acryl and has a thickness of 50 µm or greater, and the metal vapor deposition layer exhibits a granular structure; see (figures 1, 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 24 to Pg. 5: li. 2], [Pg. 5: li. 13-16], [Pg. 8: li. 1-14], [Pg. 9: li. 14-35], [Pg. 10: li. 9-10, 23-25, and 36-37], [Pg. 11: li. 10-14], [Pg. 15: li. 15-18], and [Pg. 19: li. 2-32]) of Kusumoto and ([0020], [0025], [0032], [0033], [0036], [0043], [0066]-[0067]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the Examiner that the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses the breaking elongation of 130% or greater at 20°C. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 24: Kusumoto discloses the decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite --the breaking elongation of the decorative vapor deposition sheet at 160°C is 355% or greater--. However, Kusumoto discloses a decorative vapor deposition sheet having the same cover resin layer and same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (e.g., a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer and a metal vapor deposition layer, wherein the cover resin layer comprises a (meth)acryl and has a thickness of 50 µm or greater, and the metal vapor deposition layer exhibits a granular structure; see (figures 1, 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 24 to Pg. 5: li. 2], [Pg. 5: li. 13-16], [Pg. 8: li. 1-14], [Pg. 9: li. 14-35], [Pg. 10: li. 9-10, 23-25, and 36-37], [Pg. 11: li. 10-14], [Pg. 15: li. 15-18], and [Pg. 19: li. 2-32]) of Kusumoto and ([0020], [0025], [0032], [0033], [0036], [0043], [0066]-[0067]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the Examiner that the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses the breaking elongation of 355% or greater at 160°C. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 25: Kusumoto discloses the decorative vapor deposition sheet, but does not explicitly recite --the decorative vapor deposition sheet has no apparent breaking or cracking when visually observed following a Tensile test--. However, Kusumoto discloses a decorative vapor deposition sheet having the same cover resin layer and same metal vapor deposition layer by the same process as applicants (e.g., a decorative vapor deposition sheet comprising a cover resin layer and a metal vapor deposition layer, wherein the cover resin layer comprises a (meth)acryl and has a thickness of 50 µm or greater, and the metal vapor deposition layer exhibits a granular structure; see (figures 1, 2A, [Pg. 4: li. 24 to Pg. 5: li. 2], [Pg. 5: li. 13-16], [Pg. 8: li. 1-14], [Pg. 9: li. 14-35], [Pg. 10: li. 9-10, 23-25, and 36-37], [Pg. 11: li. 10-14], [Pg. 15: li. 15-18], and [Pg. 19: li. 2-32]) of Kusumoto and ([0020], [0025], [0032], [0033], [0036], [0043], [0066]-[0067]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the Examiner that the decorative vapor deposition sheet of Kusumoto inherently possesses no apparent breaking or cracking when visually observed following a Tensile test. See MPEP §2112.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights