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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 11/3/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 2, 10, 13 and 15 are cancelled, claims 11-12, 14 and 16 and claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14 and 16 are pending.
The Examiner is presenting a new non-final rejection due to the statement provided showing that Yoda (WO 2019/176323 A1) has a common assignee overcoming the 103 rejection of Yoda (WO 2019/176323 A1).
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 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto et al (US 2006/0275671 A1) in view of Takada et al (JP 3117172 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Eto discloses a thermal transfer sheet (volume hologram transfer foil; paragraph [0039]), comprising:
a first substrate (substrate; Fig. 4 #1; paragraph [0075]);
a first adhesive layer (heat seal layer; Fig. 4 #4; paragraph [0080]); and
a second adhesive layer between the first substrate and the first adhesive layer (heat seal layer; Fig. 4 #4’; paragraph [0080]),
wherein the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are layers to be transferred from the thermal transfer sheet by heating (substrate released after transfer of the volume hologram transfer foil after application onto an application member ; Fig. 4 #4; paragraph [0080]),
wherein the first adhesive layer contains a crystalline polyester (heat-seal layer contains crystalline polyester resin; paragraph [0082]), and
wherein the second adhesive layer contains an amorphous polyester (polyester of the heat seal layer further contains amorphous polyester; Fig. 4 #4’; paragraph [0080]).
Eto does not disclose the thermal transfer sheet comprising the first adhesive layer further containing a vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate.
However, Takada discloses thermal transfer sheet (photosensitive transfer sheet transferred by heat; pg. 3 of Takada translation) comprising the first adhesive layer further containing a vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (heat-sealing layer containing polyester resin, vinyl-chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and mixtures thereof; pg. 6 of Takada translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal transfer sheet of Eto to include the vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate because including a material, such as vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer, provides sufficient adhesion to the sheet to be transferred to (pg. 6 of Takada translation).
Regarding claim 3, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above.
Eto does not disclose the thermal transfer sheet comprising a ratio of an amount of the vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer contained to an amount of the crystalline polyester contained in the first adhesive layer (the amount of the vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer contained/the amount of the crystalline polyester contained) is 1/4 or more and 19/1 or less on a mass basis.
However, Takada discloses thermal transfer sheet (photosensitive transfer sheet transferred by heat; pg. 3 of Takada translation) comprising the first adhesive layer further containing a vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate (heat-sealing layer containing polyester resin, vinyl-chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers and mixtures thereof; pg. 6 of Takada translation).
Takeda does not disclose the thermal transfer sheet comprising the amount of the vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer contained and the amount of the crystalline polyester contained being 1/4 or more and 19/1 or less on a mass basis.
However, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 4, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above and Eto discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising the crystalline polyester having a glass transition temperature of -10 °C or higher and 30 °C or lower (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above and Eto discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising the crystalline polyester has a melting point of 100 °C or higher and 150 °C or lower (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above and Eto discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising the crystalline polyester has a number-average molecular weight of 20,000 or more and 40,000 or less (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above and Eto discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising the first adhesive layer containing a particle (heat seal layer contains inorganic fine particles and organic fine particles; paragraph [0091]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto et al (US 2006/0275671 A1) in view of Takada et al (JP 3117172 B2) in further view of Yoneyama et al (JP 2017-064154 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Yoneyama et al (JP 2017-064154 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above.
Eto does not discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising further comprises a coloring material layer, wherein the coloring material layer and the first adhesive layer are disposed as being frame sequentially on one surface.
However, Yoneyama discloses a thermal transfer sheet (pg. 1 of Yoneyama translation) comprising further comprises a coloring material layer (invisble light absorbing material-containing layer; pg. 7 of Yoneyama), wherein the coloring material layer and the first adhesive layer are disposed as being frame sequentially on one surface (invisble light absorbing material-containing layer #2 and heat seal layer #5 are disposed frame sequentially; Fig. 5; paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal transfer sheet of Eto and Takeda to substitute the single layer structure for the heat seal layer of Eto for the frame sequential arrangement of Yoneyama because having the frame sequential arrangement with the invisble light absorbing material-containing layer provides a special image (pg. 6 of Yoneyama translation).
Regarding claim 9, Eto and Takada disclose the thermal transfer sheet of claim 1 as noted above.
Eto and Takeda do not disclose the thermal transfer sheet comprising a coloring material of the coloring material layer is a pigment.
However, Yoneyama discloses the thermal transfer sheet comprising a coloring material of the coloring material layer is a pigment (invisble light absorbing material-containing layer containing a pigment; pg. 7 of Yoneyama translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal transfer sheet of Eto and Takeda to substitute the single layer structure for the heat seal layer of Eto for the frame sequential arrangement of Yoneyama because having the frame sequential arrangement with the invisble light absorbing material-containing layer provides a special image (pg. 6 of Yoneyama translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 under 103 by Yoda (WO 2019/176323 A1) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is noted above.
Applicants argue that Yoda has a common assignee and cannot be used as prior art.
This argument is persuasive as Yoda has a common assignee and cannot be used as prior art. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785