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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 27 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 requires the laminate to have “a thickness of 200 µm or more” (ll. 1 – 2 of the claim). However, claim 1 requires a resin layer of the laminate to have a thickness of 1.0 mm or more (l. 5 of the claim). Since claim 1 (1) is the base claim of claim 3 and (2) specifies the presence of an adhesive layer and a fiber layer, it follows the laminate will have a thickness greater than 1.0 mm, a range which claim 3 currently encompasses. Accordingly, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1.
The examiner observes the instant specification outlines thicknesses for the laminate as a whole (e.g. ¶ [0028]). The examiner recommends narrowing claim 3 to a range narrower than claim 1 and consistent with the instant specification.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 10 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi ‘565 (US 2017/0043565 A1) in view of Sunagawa (US 2018/0264788 A1) and Frijns (US 2011/0092643 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fushimi ‘565 discloses a laminate (“composite”, e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0125]) having
a fiber layer comprising cellulose fibers with a fiber width of, e.g., 2 to 1000 nm (“sheet layer”, e.g. “sheet layer” 1: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0010], [0012], [0014] – [0021], [0029], [0035] – [0037], [0049], [0054] – [0057], [0061] – [0097], [0102] – [0104], [0114] – [0116], [0119] – [0121]),
an adhesive layer (“covering layer”, e.g. “covering layer” 2: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0010], [0012], [0019], [0020], [0023], [0027] – [0032], [0035] – [0038], [0054] – [0056], [0058], [0061], [0062], [0098] – [0106], [0114], [0115], [0120], [0121]), and
a resin layer (“resin layer”, e.g. “resin layer” 3: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0009] – [0012], [0014], [0019] – [0021], [0033], [0036], [0038], [0040], [0043], [0044], [0048], [0052], [0054] – [0056], [0058], [0061], [0062], [0102], [0103], [0107] – [0121])
in this order (e.g. Fig. 1, 2), wherein
the total basis weight of the fiber layer is 0.9 to 480 g/m2 or more (implied from a density of 0.90 to 1.60 g/cm3 and a thickness of 1 to 300 µm: e.g. ¶¶ [0086], [0087]),
the resin layer comprises an amorphous resin (“amorphous fluorine resin” is mentioned as an example: e.g. ¶ [0108]), and
the adhesive layer comprises a polymer (“resin”: e.g. ¶¶ [0098] – [0104]).
Although Fushimi ‘565 is not explicit as to (I) a thickness of the resin layer being 1.0 mm or more or (II) the polymer (of the adhesive layer) being a polycarbonate, and the glass transition temperature of the polymer being lower than 170°C, these features would have been obvious in view of Sunagawa and Frijns.
With respect to (I), Fushimi ‘565 discloses embodiments where the resin layer has a thickness less than 1.0 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0043], [0117]) but does not limit their disclosure to such embodiments (e.g. ¶ [0117] mentions the range of “about 0.1 to 100 µm”, which is the broadest range explicitly outlined, is non-limiting). Furthermore, the examiner observes Fushimi ‘565 does not disclose reasons as to why the thickness ought to be within the explicitly disclosed ranges. Therefore, thicknesses outside the explicitly-stated ranges Fushimi ‘565 provides may be used provided other properties of the laminate are not lost, namely high strength and high transparency (e.g. ¶ [0121]).
Sunagawa discloses laminates of cellulose fibers and resin layers, e.g. resin layers comprising polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0014] – [0382]), wherein resin layers have individual thicknesses of 0.001 mm or more to meet mechanical strength requirements and up to 50 mm to meet the needs of particular uses (“1 µm” and “50 mm” are noted as most extreme endpoints: e.g. ¶ [0280]). One of ordinary skill in the art can therefore infer that greater thicknesses can be used when greater strength is desired.
Additionally, Sunagawa discloses their laminates exhibit a total light transmittance of 60% or more, e.g. 85% or more, and a haze of 20% or less, e.g. 5% or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0108], [0109]). Given Fushimi ‘565 offers similar ranges (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0045], [0123]), it can be further inferred the greater thicknesses Sunagawa discloses for a resin layer as compared to Fushimi ‘565 will not degrade the transparency properties Fushimi ‘565 discloses.
Fushimi ‘565 discloses the resin layer may also comprise polycarbonate (e.g. ¶ [0108]). Based on the equivalence of the materials both Fushimi ‘565 and Sunagawa disclose, one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed Sunagawa’s disclosure can be similarly applied to Fushimi ‘565’s disclosure with similar results.
“[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). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s laminate such that the resin layer has a thickness of 1.0 mm or more as Sunagawa suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to improve the strength of the laminate, particularly in comparison to explicitly-disclosed embodiments Fushimi ‘565 provides.
With respect to (II), Frijns discloses a polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0069]) which has a glass transition temperature of -10°C to 180°C, e.g. 45°C to 100°C (e.g. ¶ [0042]). Frijns discloses polycarbonates with a low glass transition temperature are sticky (e.g. ¶ [0003]) and lacking in mechanical properties (e.g. ¶ [0006]). Thus, Frijns provides polycarbonates with a higher glass transition temperature useful for when stickiness is not desired (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0006]) and substantial mechanical properties (such as impact resistance, toughness, and hardness: e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0045], [0047]) are desired. This makes Frijns’ polycarbonates useful for making adhesives or films (e.g. ¶ [0052]).
Generally, Fushimi ‘565 does not limit the composition of the adhesive layer but does mention polyester as an example of the polymer (e.g. ¶ [0098]). Polycarbonates contain the ester linkage (i.e. -O-(C=O)-R-) characteristic of polyesters and thus are polyesters. Even if not considered the same it should be emphasized Fushimi ‘565 requires is “high adhesion” between the resin layer and the fiber layer while maintaining the high transparency and strength previously discussed (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0012], [0054], [0102], [0103], [0121]) and therefore a species chosen for the adhesive layer should satisfy this.
Additionally, Fushimi ‘565 addresses concerns with respect to cellulose fibers discoloring due to elevated temperatures, e.g. during a process of drying fibers at temperatures between 40 and 120°C, as well as heating expenses (e.g. ¶ [0097]). Accordingly, using an adhesive layer whose polymer has a glass transition temperature which does not greatly exceed this range would have been beneficial to avoiding the discoloration Fushimi ‘565 mentions and to reduce manufacturing costs. This property is particularly relevant as Fushimi ‘565 describes the use of thermoplastics for the adhesive layer in contrast to other adhesives such as heat-curable or photocurable resins (e.g. ¶ [0098]), meaning the polymer of the adhesive layer is heated to a fluent state where bonding can occur. During this heated state, the cellulose fibers of the fiber layer are exposed to the heat of the polymer, thus motivating proper glass transition temperature selection. Observing the comparability of the glass transition temperature range Frijns discloses relative to Fushimi ‘565, Frijns’ polycarbonates align with these goals.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s adhesive layer to comprise a polymer which is a polycarbonate and whose glass transition temperature is -10°C to 180°C, e.g. 45°C to 100°C, as Frijns suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to provide the mechanical properties Fushimi ‘565 demands of their laminate as well as to protect the cellulose fibers during the heat pressing to form the laminate.
Regarding claim 2, while Fushimi ‘565 separately mentions an amorphous resin and polycarbonate (e.g. ¶ [0108]), Fushimi ‘565 is not explicit as to using an amorphous polycarbonate resin.
However, the polycarbonate Frijns discloses as highlighted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 is amorphous (e.g. ¶ [0044]). Additionally, the advantages Frijns discloses of this amorphous polycarbonate are commensurate with Fushimi ‘565’s resin layer, in particular mechanical properties such as strength and crack resistance (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0054], [0103]). For example, crack resistance is characteristic of toughness in the ability to maintain integrity even when bend (noting a test method Fushimi ‘565 discusses with respect to examples: e.g. ¶¶ [0162] – [0164]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use Frijns’ amorphous polycarbonate in the resin layer Fushimi ‘565 discloses, the motivation being to guarantee crack resistance.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Sunagawa suggests modifying the thickness of the resin layer to be 1.0 mm or more (e.g. ¶ [0280]), meaning the thickness of the laminate Fushimi ‘565, Sunagawa, and Frijns collectively disclose will also have a thickness greater than 1.0 mm. This range lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Fushimi ‘565 discloses the laminate has a total light transmittance of, e.g., 80% or more (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0045], [0123]).
Fushimi ‘565’s total light transmittance matches the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Fushimi ‘565 discloses the laminate has a haze of, e.g., 5% or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0045], [0123]).
Fushimi ‘565’s haze matches the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Fushimi ‘565 discloses the laminate further has an adhesive layer and a resin layer on the other surface of the fiber layer (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Sunagawa discloses laminates of cellulose fibers and polycarbonate, wherein the cellulose fibers are unevenly distributed in a region near the surface layer in the thickness direction which helps to increase bending elastic modulus and lower the linear expansion coefficient (a “resin layer” 1 forms the center of the laminate, where the percentage of fibers in a thickness of Tx0.2 from the surface is 30% or more and 100% or less: e.g. ¶¶ [0048], [0100], [0101]).
Given Fushimi ‘565 applies to applications where strength is required (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0012], [0054], [0102], [0103], [0121]) and dimensional stability is desired (e.g. ¶ [0067]), it would have been obvious to unevenly distribute Fushimi ‘565’s cellulose fibers in a region near the surface layer in the thickness direction of the laminate in order to provide structural and dimensional properties suitable for an intended use thereof.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Fushimi ‘565 discloses the cellulose fibers are unevenly distributed in the central region in the thickness direction of the laminate (“sheet layer” 1 is in the center of the “composite”: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0056], [0062]).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi ‘565, Sunagawa, and Frijns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akai (JP 2009-167296 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 9 July 2025).
Regarding claim 7, although Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns are not explicit as to the laminate having a YI value of 15 or less, this feature would have been obvious in view of Akai.
Fushimi ‘565 notes discoloration of the cellulose fibers, and thus the laminate as a whole, should be suppressed (e.g. ¶¶ [0127], [0145]).
Akai notes a YI value of 40 or less, e.g. 15 or less, is desirable for maintaining desirable appearance as it limits the amount of yellowing in a laminate, namely by reducing yellowing of cellulose fibers and/or counterbalancing color of the polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0052], [0053], [0064], [0154], [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the laminate Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns disclose with a YI value of 40 or less, e.g. 15 or less, as Akai suggests, the motivation being to maintain desirable appearance of the laminate.
Regarding claim 9, although Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns are not explicit as to the laminate having a linear thermal expansion coefficient of 70 ppm/K or less, this feature would have been obvious in view of Akai.
Akai discloses a laminate comprising cellulose fibers and polycarbonate similar to the laminate Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns disclose, wherein the linear thermal expansion coefficient thereof is 50 ppm/K or less in order to suppress dimensional changes which can cause cracking (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0179]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide the laminate Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns disclose with a linear thermal expansion coefficient of 50 ppm/K or less, the motivation being to suppress dimensional changes which can cause cracking. Dimensional stability is a desirable feature in Fushimi ‘565’s laminate (e.g. ¶ [0067]), so this is considered a reasonable modification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi ‘565, Sunagawa, and Frijns as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2010-023275 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 9 July 2025).
Regarding claim 8, although Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns are not explicit as to the laminate having a bending elastic modulus of 2.3 GPa or more, this feature would have been obvious in view of Yamamoto.
Yamamoto discloses a laminate of polycarbonate and cellulose fiber, wherein the bending elastic modulus is 0.2 to 100 GPa in order to provided sufficient strength for structural material applications (e.g. ¶¶ [0086], [0124]).
Given Fushimi ‘565 applies to structural material applications (“signboard”: e.g. ¶ [0001], [0039], [0053]), it would have been obvious for the laminate Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns disclose to have a bending elastic modulus of 0.2 to 100 GPa as Yamamoto suggests in order to provide a strength suitable for an intended purpose thereof.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi ‘565, Sunagawa, and Frijns as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fushimi ‘327 (JP 2017-154327 A, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 27 January 2026).
Regarding claim 13, although Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns are not explicit as to the fiber layer not being exposed, this feature would have been obvious in view of Fushimi ‘327.
Fushimi ‘327 discloses laminates of polycarbonate and cellulose fibers, wherein two layers of polycarbonate are touching each other such that a fiber layer of the cellulose fibers is not exposed (e.g. Fig. 1; p. 2, ¶ 2, to p. 10, ¶ 11), which improves adhesion between the layers of the laminate (e.g. p. 2, ¶¶ 6, 9; p. 3, ¶¶ 1, 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s laminate such that the fiber layer is not exposed as Fushimi ‘327 suggests in order to improve adhesion between the layers of the laminate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fushimi ‘565 in view of Sunagawa, Frijns, and Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 14, Fushimi ‘565 discloses a method for producing a laminate (“composite”, e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0125]), comprising
laminating (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0011], [0012], [0019], [0033], [0037], [0038], [0040], [0055], [0056], [0061], [0062], [0088], [0107], [0118] – [0121])
a fiber layer comprising cellulose fibers with a fiber width of, e.g., 2 to 1000 nm (“sheet layer”, e.g. “sheet layer” 1: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0010], [0012], [0014] – [0021], [0029], [0035] – [0037], [0049], [0054] – [0057], [0061] – [0097], [0102] – [0104], [0114] – [0116], [0119] – [0121]),
an adhesive layer (“covering layer”, e.g. “covering layer” 2: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0010], [0012], [0019], [0020], [0023], [0027] – [0032], [0035] – [0038], [0054] – [0056], [0058], [0061], [0062], [0098] – [0106], [0114], [0115], [0120], [0121]), and
a resin layer (“resin layer”, e.g. “resin layer” 3: e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0009] – [0012], [0014], [0019] – [0021], [0033], [0036], [0038], [0040], [0043], [0044], [0048], [0052], [0054] – [0056], [0058], [0061], [0062], [0102], [0103], [0107] – [0121])
in this order (e.g. Fig. 2), and wherein
the total basis weight of the fiber layer is 0.9 to 480 g/m2 or more (implied from a density of 0.90 to 1.60 g/cm3 and a thickness of 1 to 300 µm: e.g. ¶¶ [0086], [0087]),
the resin layer comprises an amorphous resin the resin layer comprises an amorphous resin (“amorphous fluorine resin” is mentioned as an example: e.g. ¶ [0108]), and
the adhesive layer comprises a polymer (“resin”: e.g. ¶¶ [0098] – [0104]).
Although Fushimi ‘565 is not explicit as to (I) a thickness of the resin layer being 1.0 mm or more or (II) the glass transition temperature of the polymer being lower than 170°C, this would have been obvious in view of Frijns.
With respect to (I), Fushimi ‘565 discloses embodiments where the resin layer has a thickness less than 1.0 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0043], [0117]) but does not limit their disclosure to such embodiments (e.g. ¶ [0117] mentions the range of “about 0.1 to 100 µm”, which is the broadest range explicitly outlined, is non-limiting). Furthermore, the examiner observes Fushimi ‘565 does not disclose reasons as to why the thickness ought to be within the explicitly disclosed ranges. Therefore, thicknesses outside the explicitly-stated ranges Fushimi ‘565 provides may be used provided other properties of the laminate are not lost, namely high strength and high transparency (e.g. ¶ [0121]).
Sunagawa discloses laminates of cellulose fibers and resin layers, e.g. resin layers comprising polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0014] – [0382]), wherein resin layers have individual thicknesses of 0.001 mm or more to meet mechanical strength requirements and up to 50 mm to meet the needs of particular uses (“1 µm” and “50 mm” are noted as most extreme endpoints: e.g. ¶ [0280]). One of ordinary skill in the art can therefore infer that greater thicknesses can be used when greater strength is desired.
Additionally, Sunagawa discloses their laminates exhibit a total light transmittance of 60% or more, e.g. 85% or more, and a haze of 20% or less, e.g. 5% or less (e.g. ¶¶ [0108], [0109]). Given Fushimi ‘565 offers similar ranges (e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0045], [0123]), it can be further inferred the greater thicknesses Sunagawa discloses for a resin layer as compared to Fushimi ‘565 will not degrade the transparency properties Fushimi ‘565 discloses.
Fushimi ‘565 discloses the resin layer may also comprise polycarbonate (e.g. ¶ [0108]). Based on the equivalence of the materials both Fushimi ‘565 and Sunagawa disclose, one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed Sunagawa’s disclosure can be similarly applied to Fushimi ‘565’s disclosure with similar results.
“[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). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s method for producing a laminate such that the resin layer has a thickness of 1.0 mm or more as Sunagawa suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to improve the strength of the laminate, particularly in comparison to explicitly-disclosed embodiments Fushimi ‘565 provides.
With respect to (II), Frijns discloses a polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0007] – [0069]) which has a glass transition temperature of -10°C to 180°C, e.g. 45°C to 100°C (e.g. ¶ [0042]). Frijns discloses polycarbonates with a low glass transition temperature are sticky (e.g. ¶ [0003]) and lacking in mechanical properties (e.g. ¶ [0006]). Thus, Frijns provides polycarbonates with a higher glass transition temperature useful for when stickiness is not desired (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0006]) and substantial mechanical properties (such as impact resistance, toughness, and hardness: e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0003], [0045], [0047]) are desired. This makes Frijns’ polycarbonates useful for making adhesives or films (e.g. ¶ [0052]).
Generally, Fushimi ‘565 does not limit the composition of the adhesive layer but does mention polyester as an example of the polymer (e.g. ¶ [0098]). Polycarbonates contain the ester linkage (i.e. -O-(C=O)-R-) characteristic of polyesters and thus are polyesters. Even if not considered the same it should be emphasized Fushimi ‘565 requires is “high adhesion” between the resin layer and the fiber layer while maintaining the high transparency and strength previously discussed (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0012], [0054], [0102], [0103], [0121]) and therefore a species chosen for the adhesive layer should satisfy this.
Additionally, Fushimi ‘565 also addresses concerns with respect to cellulose fibers discoloring due to elevated temperatures, e.g. during a process of drying fibers at temperatures between 40 and 120°C, as well as heating expenses (e.g. ¶ [0097]). Accordingly, using an adhesive layer whose polymer has a glass transition temperature which does not greatly exceed this range would have been beneficial to avoiding the discoloration Fushimi ‘565 mentions and to reduce manufacturing costs. This property is particularly relevant as Fushimi ‘565 describes the use of thermoplastics for the adhesive layer in contrast to other adhesive such as heat-curable or photocurable resins (e.g. ¶ [0098]), meaning the polymer of the adhesive layer is heated to a fluent state where bonding can occur. During this heated state, the cellulose fibers of the fiber layer are exposed to the heat of the polymer, thus motivating proper glass transition temperature selection. Observing the comparability of the glass transition temperature range Frijns discloses relative to Fushimi ‘565, Frijns’ polycarbonates align with these goals.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s adhesive layer to comprise a polymer whose glass transition temperature is -10°C to 180°C, e.g. 45°C to 100°C, as Frijns suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification to provide the mechanical properties Fushimi ‘565 demands of their laminate as well as to protect the cellulose fibers during the heat pressing to form the laminate.
As to hot-pressing the laminated layers, the laminates Sunagawa discloses which are similar to Fushimi ‘565’s laminates are hot-pressed (e.g. ¶¶ [0308], [0369]). Yamamoto also discloses laminates of cellulose fiber layers and polycarbonate (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0097]) similar to those Fushimi ‘565 and Sunagawa disclose, and notes a hot-pressing method helps polycarbonate and cellulose fibers layers to adhere to one another (e.g. ¶¶ [0014], [0015], [0090] – [0094]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Fushimi ‘565’s method to add a hot-pressing step for the laminated layers, the motivation being to further improve the bond between the layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5 – 7, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns fail to teach laminates for the reasons set forth in the Remarks filed 27 March 2026. The examiner addressed these assertions in the Advisory Action mailed 16 April 2026. Applicant’s response in the current filing of 27 April 2026 do not address the Advisory Action, thus the examiner maintains the reasons set forth therein.
In the Remarks filed 27 April 2026, Applicant asserts Fushimi ‘565 and Frijns do not teach laminates whose resin layer is 1.0 mm or more. Applicant assert the remaining secondary disclosures do not address this deficiency.
Applicant’s assertions relies on Fushimi ‘565 disclosing laminates of a thickness of 500 µm or less and thus cannot teach a resin layer (i.e. a component of the laminate) having thickness of 1.0 mm or more.
However, as noted in the rejections, Fushimi ‘565 does not limit their disclosure to such thin laminates and provides no indication that deviating from the explicitly stated embodiments would be detrimental. Accordingly, Sunagawa’s disclosure of additional thickness contributing additional strength can be reasonably used to improve Fushimi ‘565’s laminates, particularly when such additional strength does not compromise other properties such as total light transmittance and haze.
Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the examiner finds the prior art renders obvious claims 1 and 14 as amended. Similar reasons apply to claims 2, 3, and 5 – 13 per their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights