Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/283,017

DECORATIVE SHEET AND DECORATIVE PANEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 20, 2023
Examiner
SIMONE, CATHERINE A
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dai Nippon Printing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
684 granted / 937 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
983
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 937 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Withdrawn Rejections The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 of record in the previous Office Action mailed on 6/17/2025 is hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment filed on 10/17/2025. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-20 as anticipated by Toyoda (JP2017043106A) of record in the previous Office Action mailed on 6/17/2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment and argument filed on 10/17/2025. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Toyoda et al. (JP2017043106A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Toyoda et al. (JP2016061046A) and Iriyama (JP2012213913A). 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 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (JP2016061046A) [hereinafter Toyoda ‘046] in view of Iriyama et al. (JP2012213913A) [hereinafter Iriyama]. Regarding claims 1 and 2, Toyoda ‘046 discloses a decorative sheet (Figs. 1-2) having a surface-protecting layer (layer 52) on its outermost surface, the surface-protecting layer having irregularities (Figs. 1-2), the irregularities having an embossed shape with a pebbly pattern, a wood-grain pattern, a wooden pattern, or a marble grain pattern (paragraphs [0056] and [0072]), and the irregularities having an average interval Sm of 180 µm to 950 µm (claim 5; Table 1; Example 1), the surface-protecting layer having a maximum height Rz of 10 to 45 µm (claim 3; Table 1; Example 1), and wherein a ratio of surface area of the surface protecting layer at an area located at a depth of up to 30 µm from the outermost surface to a total surface area is 40% or more (recess area ratio of 50%; see Example 1; paragraph [0072]). Toyoda ‘046 fails to teach the surface-protecting layer having a Martens hardness of 30 to 170 N/mm2, the Martens hardness being a value measured in such a manner that when the surface-protecting layer contains fine particles, a diamond indenter is pressed into a position avoiding the fine particles to measure the Martens hardness of a cross-section. Iriyama teaches it is well known in the decorative material art to have the surface protection layer having a Martens hardness of 30 to 170 N/mm2, the Martens hardness being a value measured in such a manner that when the surface-protecting layer contains fine particles, a diamond indenter is pressed into a position avoiding the fine particles to measure the Martens hardness of a cross-section, for the purpose of providing excellent scratch resistance and prevent whitening damage (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface protection layer in Toyoda ‘046 to have a Martens hardness of 30 to 170 N/mm2, the Martens hardness being a value measured in such a manner that when the surface-protecting layer contains fine particles, a diamond indenter is pressed into a position avoiding the fine particles to measure the Martens hardness of a cross-section, as suggested by Iriyama in order to provide the decorative sheet with excellent scratch resistance and prevent whitening. Regarding claims 3 and 14, Toyoda ‘046 discloses Rz is between 10 to 19 µm (Table 1, Example 1; claim 3). Regarding claims 4 and 15, Toyoda ‘046 discloses Sm is 450 to 750 µm (claim 5; Table 1, Example 1). Regarding claims 5 and 16, Toyoda ‘046 discloses wherein a ratio of surface area of the surface protecting layer at an area located at a depth of less than 30 µm from the outermost surface to a total surface area is 50% to 90% (recess area ratio of 50%; see Example 1; paragraph [0072]). Regarding claims 6 and 17, Toyoda ‘046 fails to specifically teach a ratio of surface area of the surface protecting layer at an area located at a depth of less than 30 µm from the outermost surface to a total surface area being 60% to 85%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of surface area of the surface protecting layer at an area located at a depth of less than 30 µm from the outermost surface to a total surface area in Toyoda’046 to be 60 to 85%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II). Regarding claims 7 and 18, Toyoda ‘046 discloses the surface-protecting layer comprises an ionizing radiation-curable resin (paragraphs [0034-0043]). Regarding claims 8 and 19, Toyoda ‘046 discloses the surface-protecting layer having a thickness of 10 to 40 µm (paragraph [0033]). Regarding claim 10, Toyoda ‘046 discloses the decorative sheet having a picture pattern layer, a transparent resin layer, and the surface-protecting layer in sequence on a base material sheet (Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0054-0059]; Example 1). Regarding claim 11, Toyoda ‘046 discloses a picture pattern layer, a transparent resin layer, and the surface-protecting layer in sequence on a base material sheet, wherein at least a backer layer is laminated on a back surface of the base material sheet (paragraphs [0054-0063]; Example 1). Regarding claim 12, Toyoda ‘046 discloses a decorative plate comprising the decorative sheet on a base material (Figs. 1-2; Example 1; paragraph [0064]). Regarding claim 13, Toyoda ‘046 discloses the base material is a single wood panel, a plywood panel, a wood fiberboard, or a particleboard (paragraph [0064]). Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda in view of Iriyama as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Shinbara (US 2019/0077124A1). Toyoda fails to teach the surface-protecting layer comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of antibacterial agents, antiviral agents and anti-allergen agents. Shinbara teaches that it is well known in the decorative sheet art to include an antibacterial agent in the surface protecting layer for the purpose of providing a decorative sheet that has an appropriately low level of wiping resistance (abstract; paragraph [0090]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 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. CATHERINE A. SIMONE Examiner Art Unit 1781 /Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600095
Forming Joints Between Composite Components
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595205
GLASS SUBSTRATE, COVER GLASS, ASSEMBLY, ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURING METHOD, IN-VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICE, AND IN-VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583208
MULTILAYER STRUCTURE, PACKAGING MATERIAL IN WHICH SAME IS UTILIZED, REGRIND COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING REGRIND COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571980
Optical Module Component Features that Aid Adhesive Attachment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570075
TRANSPARENT RESIN FILM, DECORATIVE BOARD, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DECORATIVE BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+23.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 937 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month