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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 27, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018-058222 Kataoka et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kataoka teaches a decorative sheet having an uneven shape on an outer surface thereof (paragraph 0008),
the decorative sheet comprising at least a first protective layer 22 forming the uneven shape, a second protective layer 21, a pattern layer 3, and a base material layer 1, in this order from the outer surface (figure 2),
the base material layer, the pattern layer, and the second protective layer have an uneven shape along the uneven shape of the first protective layer (figure 2, where the uneven shape is on the bottom surface of the first protective layer),
the first protective layer being formed of a cured product of a resin composition containing an ionizing radiation curable resin (paragraph 0036) and a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0121), wherein the ionizing radiation curable resin contains polyfunctional methacrylate oligomers (paragraph 0038) or polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomers (paragraph 0037), and the thermoplastic resin contains an acrylic resin (paragraph 0121),
the second protective layer being formed of a cured product of an ionizing radiation curable resin composition containing polycarbonate methacrylate (paragraph 0038),
the first protective layer being formed on the entire outer surface of the decorative sheet (figure 2),
the first protective layer being the outermost layer of the decorative sheet (figure 2, after the release sheet has been removed).
Regarding claim 5, Kataoka teaches that in the first protective layer, a weight average molecular weight of the thermoplastic resin is 120,000 (paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 6, Kataoka teaches that in the first protective layer, a number of functional groups of a monomer contained in the ionizing radiation curable resin is 2, 3, 5 or 6 (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, Kataoka teaches that in the first protective layer, a molecular weight of a monomer contained in the ionizing radiation curable resin is 300 (paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 8, Kataoka teaches that a base material layer is laminated on a surface of the second protective layer on a side opposite to the first protective layer (figure 2, via other layers, where interposing layers is not excluded by the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Kataoka teaches that the sheet is used in an insert molding method or an injection molding simultaneous decorating method (paragraph 0101).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-058222 Kataoka et al.
Regarding claim 4, Kataoka teaches that in the first protective layer, the resin composition contains the ionizing radiation curable resin and the thermoplastic resin at a mass ratio of 30:70 (paragraph 0121).
Since the claimed upper limit of 25:75 is close to the prior art lower limit of 30:70, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the resin mixture’s performance in the prior art range of 30:70 would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 10, Kataoka does not explicitly teach the Ra. However, Kataoka teaches that the surface features have a maximum peak-to-valley height of 0.01 to 20 microns, such that the corresponding Ra would be 0.005 to 10 microns (paragraph 0041). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0.005 to 10 microns reads on the claimed range of 0.1 to 100 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Horio and Kitahara have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection over Kataoka does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781