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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-17 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/9/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 5/31/2023, 3/12/2025, and 5/22/2025 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by
“ a non-yellowing isocyanate.” Said term is not defined in the specification and does not have an art-accepted meaning.
Furthermore, with regards to claim 1, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear how the elastic recovery rate of the cover film is determined. Specifically, the claim and the specification fail to set forth a test standard by which the elastic recovery rate is determined. Since elastic recovery rate is known to be dependent upon a number of variables, including load rate, temperature, and hold time.
With regards to claim 3, said claim is held to be indefinite because It is unclear if the base layer and the surface layer each have to contain the environmental stabilizing agent or the claim merely states the concentration of environmental stabilizing agent in the total of the cover film. Herein, the claim will be understood to no require the stabilizing agent be present in both layers.
With regards to claim 6, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear under what conditions the claimed light transmittance and haze values are determined; e.g. what wavelength of light; what angle of incidence; are both test done at 50% stretch or only the haze, etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1140848A (herein referred to as Sanyo in view of CN 1247498 (herein referred to as Gardner). With regards to Sanyo, the examiner notes that since the translation available to the Office does not contain citable paragraphs or columns, support for the teachings cited herein is understood to be found in the entirety of the translation.
Sanyo teaches a multilayer film, which is a multilayer film having a base layer and surface layer (herein understood to read on the claimed surface layer which includes polyurethane X1) wherein the surface layer contains polyurethane resin composed of an active hydrogen component (A1) and an isocyanate (B1), the active hydrogen component (herein understood to read on claimed A1) contains a compound having a polyorganosiloxane group (herein understood to read on claimed compound a1-1) and an active hydrogen group as essential components (see all). Said urethane may contain urethane and urea units. The base layer comprise a polyurethane material (herein understood to read on the claimed component X2) having a urethane unit wherein the polyurethane is obtained by reacting an active hydrogen component and an isocyanate component. Said active hydrogen component is understood not to comprise compound a1-1 since the reference is silent to the presence of the polyorganosiloxane in the base layer. The polyisocyanate component of the surface layer and the base layer may be aliphatic polyisocyanate (disclosed as b2), which is understood to be non-yellowing. The elastic recovery of the polyurethane cover layer is taught to be 60-100%when 100% stretch and the elastic recovery of the polyurethane base layer is each taught to be 80-100% at 100% stretch. Said teaching is understood to read on the claimed range of the cover film of 80-100%. Alternatively, Sanyo teaches the elastic recovery rate is set by adjusting the choice of polyol in the polyurethane. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the elastic recovery based upon the desired properties of the resulting cover film.
Sanyo is relied upon as above, but does not teach the base layer and the surface layer are chemically bonded to each other or that the crosslinking concentration of the polyurethane resin X2 meets the limitations of Equation 1. However, Gardner teaches that two adjacent layers of polyurethanes may be chemically bonded to each other at the interface when chemically unreacted functional sights of one layer are able to react with unreacted sights from the adjacent layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to chemically react the two polyurethane layers disclosed in Sanyo with each other. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the adhesion between said layers. Furthermore, with regards to equation 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include to include monomer with three or more functional groups therein in order to obtain surface and cover layers with unreacted functionality. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of said multifunctional monomers in order to optimize the bond between said layers.
With regards to claim 2, the active hydrogen compound in A1-1 may comprise hydroxyl, amino group, or a carboxyl group.
With regards to claim 3, the cover layer may further include a light stabilizer, a UV stabilizer or a flame retardant Said materials are understood to read on the claimed “Environmental stabilizing agent.” Sanyo is silent to the amount of said additives which are present. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of additive in the surface layer in order to optimize the benefits of said additive in the cover film.
With regards to claim 4, Sanyo teaches the isocyanate may comprise isocyanates with 2 or 3 isocyanates or modified diisocyanates. Said embodiments are understood to read on the claimed ”isocyanate having three or more functional groups.”
With regards to claim 5, Sanyo teaches the surface film may have a thickness of 50um or less, and the base layer preferably has a thickness of 300-600um.
With regards to claim 6, Sanyo does not teach the claimed transmittance and haze values. However, the cover film of Sanyo is understood to inherently meet said limitations since it is compositionally identical to the claimed film. Alternatively, Sanyo teaches the haze value of the film may be controlled by choosing the organosiloxane component and active hydrogen component. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the haze of the film in order to obtain the desired optical properties in the cover film.
With regards to claim 7, Sanyo does not teach the claimed hysteresis value. However, the cover film of Sanyo is understood to inherently meet said limitations since it is compositionally identical to the claimed film.
With regards to claim 16, Sanyo teaches the isocyanate may not include an aromatic component.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of art renders obvious the claimed cover film wherein the base material and the surface layer are chemically bonded to each other through a reaction between a component in the surface layer and a component in the base material layer at least at an interface between the base material layer and the surface layer for the reasons noted above with regards to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights