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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 9/24/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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, 3, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenanten et al (US 2015/0044441 A1) in view of Schubert et al (US 2010/0288164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guenanten teaches a multilayer foil (e.g., co-extruded film) comprising at least two layers of PMMA; wherein the outer layer (i.e., layer A) consists of a molding composition comprising 20% by weight particulate silica (e.g., SiOx particles) as a matting agent and 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer A is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer A) (abstract, para 1, 20, 24).
Guenanten teaches the inner layer (layer B) consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer B is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer B) (abstract, para 1, 24).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Guenanten fails to suggest wherein the particulate silica is a precipitated silica or a pyrogenic silica; and wherein the particulate silica has a specific surface area, measured by BET method according to ISO 9277 of more than 500 m2/g to 850 m2/g. However, it is noted that silica is considered naturally hydrophilic.
Schubert teaches precipitated matting agents comprising silica (i.e., hydrophilic) with a BET specific surface area of up to 550 m2/g (abstract, para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the hydrophilic precipitated silica of Schubert for the silica of Guenanten, since Guenanten teaches the use of silica particles (para 20, 22), and it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Schubert teaches precipitated silica with a specific surface area of up to 550 m2/g (abstract, para 8). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. 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 Schubert, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
The limitation “measured by BET method according to ISO 9277” appears to be that of a testing method that does not any additional structure.
Regarding claim 3, Guenanten teaches in layer A that 0.01 (80 wt % impact modifier) ≤ 20 wt % silica ≤ 0.4 (80 wt % impact modifier) (i.e., 0.8 ≤ 20 ≤ 32) (para 20, 40).
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 9, Schubert teaches the hydrophilic precipitated silica having a d50 of 5-15 µm, a modified tapped density of 20 g/l to 90 g/l; a DBP-value of 320 g/100 g to 400 g/100 g (para 8), so Schubert teaches values that lie within that of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is based on an optional limitation of claim 1 and therefore need not be taught by Guenanten as modified by Schubert.
Regarding claim 11, Guenanten teaches the impact modifiers are a core-shell particle or a core-shell-shell particle (para 23).
Regarding claim 12, Guenanten teaches the use of combinations of benzotriazole and triazine as UV absorbers, and hindered light amine stabilizers as UV stabilizers; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of these additives to optimize the desired properties of the film. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 13, Guenanten teaches the inner layer (layer B) consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer B is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer B) (abstract, para 1, 24).
Guenanten further teaches a third layer that is on an outer layer (layer C); wherein the outer layer consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer C is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer C) and 20% by weight particulate silica (e.g., SiOx particles) modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the particulate silica and the adhesion-promoting copolymer is at least 2.0 wt %. based on the weight of layer C) (abstract, para 1, 20, 24, 38).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the layer B is located between the layer A and the layer C;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the position of the layers to optimize its physical properties (e.g., scratch resistance, adhesion, appearance, mechanical stress and from weathering effects, etc). Furthermore, rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI C).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Regarding claim 14, Guenanten teaches the third layer (i.e., layer C) may comprise PVDF (i.e., a fluoropolymer); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of PVDF in the third layer to optimize the desired properties of the layer. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Regarding claim 15, Guenanten teaches the thickness of the inner and the outer layer of the PMMA foils according to the invention is preferably from 4 to 200 µm (para 36). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. 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 Guenanten, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenanten and Schubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staunton (US 2006/0217472 A1).
Guenanten as modified by Schubert teaches the foil of claim 1. Guenanten further teaches a scratch resistant third layer that is on an outer layer (layer C) that comprises PMMA (i.e., a coating layed D adjacent to layer A) (para 37).
Guenanten as modified by Schubert fails to suggest the limitations of claim 16.
Staunton teaches a curable composition comprising a hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer (e.g., methyl methacrylate polymer) and a polyisocyanate (i.e., crosslinking agent) (para 2-8, 29, 57, 65); wherein the curable composition is designed to be used as a coating having improved scratch resistance (para 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the composition of Staunton for the scratch resistant layer of Guenanten as modified by Schubert, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenanten et al (US 2015/0044441 A1) in view of Hasenzahl (EP 0 985 636 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Guenanten teaches a multilayer foil (e.g., co-extruded film) comprising at least two layers of PMMA; wherein the outer layer (i.e., layer A) consists of a molding composition comprising 20% by weight particulate silica (e.g., SiOx particles) as a matting agent and 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer A is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer A) (abstract, para 1, 20, 24).
Guenanten teaches the inner layer (layer B) consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer B is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer B) (abstract, para 1, 24).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Guenanten fails to suggest wherein the particulate silica is a precipitated silica or a pyrogenic silica; and wherein the particulate silica has a specific surface area, measured by BET method according to ISO 9277 of more than 500 m2/g to 850 m2/g; and wherein the particulate silica has a silanol group density of not lower than 0.5 SiOH/nm2. However, it is noted that silica is considered naturally hydrophilic.
Hasenzahl teaches precipitated matting agents comprising silica (i.e., hydrophilic) with a BET specific surface area of greater than 500 m2/g, and preferably greater than 700 m2/g; and a number of silanol groups, based on the specific surface area, is less than 3 nm2 (abstract, page 3, 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the hydrophilic precipitated silica of Hasenzahl for the silica of Guenanten, since Guenanten teaches the use of silica particles as matting agents (para 20, 22), and it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Hasenzahl teaches precipitated matting agents comprising silica (i.e., hydrophilic) with a BET specific surface area of greater than 500 m2/g, and preferably greater than 700 m2/g; and a number of silanol groups, based on the specific surface area, is less than 3 SiOH/nm2 (abstract, page 3, 7). These range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. 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 Hasenzahl, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
The limitation “measured by BET method according to ISO 9277” appears to be that of a testing method that does not any additional structure.
Regarding claim 3, Guenanten teaches in layer A that 0.01 (80 wt % impact modifier) ≤ 20 wt % silica ≤ 0.4 (80 wt % impact modifier) (i.e., 0.8 ≤ 20 ≤ 32) (para 20, 40).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is based on an optional limitation of claim 1 and therefore need not be taught by Guenanten as modified by Hasenzahl.
Regarding claim 11, Guenanten teaches the impact modifiers are a core-shell particle or a core-shell-shell particle (para 23).
Regarding claim 12, Guenanten teaches the use of combinations of benzotriazole and triazine as UV absorbers, and hindered light amine stabilizers as UV stabilizers; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of these additives to optimize the desired properties of the film. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 13, Guenanten teaches the inner layer (layer B) consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer B is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer B) (abstract, para 1, 24).
Guenanten further teaches a third layer that is on an outer layer (layer C); wherein the outer layer consists of a molding composition comprising 80% by weight of impact modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the polyalkyl (meth)acrylate and the impact modifier in the moulding composition of the layer C is at least 50 wt %. based on the weight of layer C) and 20% by weight particulate silica (e.g., SiOx particles) modifiers (i.e., wherein a cumulative content of the particulate silica and the adhesion-promoting copolymer is at least 2.0 wt %. based on the weight of layer C) (abstract, para 1, 20, 24, 38).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the layer B is located between the layer A and the layer C;” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the position of the layers to optimize its physical properties (e.g., scratch resistance, adhesion, appearance, mechanical stress and from weathering effects, etc). Furthermore, rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI C).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Regarding claim 14, Guenanten teaches the third layer (i.e., layer C) may comprise PVDF (i.e., a fluoropolymer); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of PVDF in the third layer to optimize the desired properties of the layer. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
The limitation 0.0 wt. % makes the inclusion of these constituents in either layer optional.
Regarding claim 15, Guenanten teaches the thickness of the inner and the outer layer of the PMMA foils according to the invention is preferably from 4 to 200 µm (para 36). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. 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 Guenanten, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenanten and Hasenzahl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staunton (US 2006/0217472 A1).
Guenanten as modified by Hasenzahl teaches the foil of claim 1. Guenanten further teaches a scratch resistant third layer that is on an outer layer (layer C) that comprises PMMA (i.e., a coating layed D adjacent to layer A) (para 37).
Guenanten as modified by Hasenzahl fails to suggest the limitations of claim 16.
Staunton teaches a curable composition comprising a hydroxy-functional acrylic polymer (e.g., methyl methacrylate polymer) and a polyisocyanate (i.e., crosslinking agent) (para 2-8, 29, 57, 65); wherein the curable composition is designed to be used as a coating having improved scratch resistance (para 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the composition of Staunton for the scratch resistant layer of Guenanten as modified by Hasenzahl, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the particulate silica has a specific surface area, measured by BET method according to ISO 9277, of more than 500 to 850 m2/g, as in amended claim 1;” Schubert teaches precipitated silica with a specific surface area of up to 550 m2/g (abstract, para 8). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. 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 Schubert, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Furthermore, Hasenzahl teaches precipitated matting agents comprising silica (i.e., hydrophilic) with a BET specific surface area of greater than 500 m2/g, and preferably greater than 700 m2/g (abstract, page 3, 7). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. 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 Hasenzahl, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Applicant contends that the presence of SiOₓ particles is only one option out of multiple options for matting agents, which itself is only an optional component within the respective outer layer of Guenanten et al. (may correspond to layer A of the present invention). This is not persuasive because Guenanten suggests a specific embodiment wherein the outer layer contains matting agents; and further suggests the use of SiOₓ (i.e., silica) (para 20).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of Panz have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights