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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024, 03/13/2024 and 11/27/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 5 is 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. The claim requires “a decorative layer that is laminated directly or indirectly on a side of the back layer of the multilayer film and is provided with a design by one or more types selected from printing, vapor deposition, painting, laminating, and coloring.” The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. MPEP 2173.05(b) Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saneto (JP 2017-206671) in view of Kamikaya (JP 2017-181990) and Konokawa et al. (US 2013/0202847).
Regarding claim 1, Saneto teaches a film, a laminated film and a laminated molded article using the laminated film (“multilayer film”) (Paragraph [0001]). The film of the laminated film comprises a vinylidene fluoride resin, an acrylic resin and an acrylic-modified tetrafluoroethylene resin wherein the content ratio of vinylidene fluoride resin/the acrylic resin is 60 to 80/40 to 20 (“surface layer composed of a resin composition comprising 60 to 80 parts by mass of a vinylidene fluoride-based resin and 20 to 40 parts by mass of a methacrylic acid ester-based resin, with respect to a total of the vinylidene fluoride-based resin and the methacrylic acid ester-based resin of 100 parts by mass”) (Paragraph [0009]; [0023]). The film is then laminated to a thermoplastic resin layer via a coextrusion method wherein the thermoplastic resin layer may be an acrylic resin such as polymethyl methacrylate (“a back layer laminated on the surface layer composed of a resin composition comprising 0 to 30 parts by mass of a vinylidene fluoride-based resin and 70 to 100 parts by mass of a methacrylic acid ester-based resin, with respect to a total of the vinylidene fluoride- based resin and the methacrylic acid ester-based resin of 100 parts by mass”) (Paragraphs [0052]-[0055]). The thermoplastic resin layer may further contain general compounding agents (Paragraph [0053]).
Saneto is silent with respect to the thermoplastic resin layer further comprising fine particles with a particle diameter of 0.2 microns or more and an average particle diameter of less than 1.0 micron.
Kamikaya teaches an optical film which is made of a thermoplastic resin composition containing crosslinked polymer particles (Paragraph [0001]; [0011]). The particles having a diameter of 180 to 450 nm (0.18 to 0.45 microns) which provide anti-blocking properties to the film and have excellent dispersibility thereby making it less likely to reduce the transparency of the film (Paragraph [0046]). The thermoplastic resin may be an acrylic resin (Paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the thermoplastic resin layer of Saneto with the crosslinked polymer particles of Kamikaya having a diameter of 0.18 to 0.45 microns in order to provide anti-blocking properties to the film and have excellent dispersibility thereby making it less likely to reduce the transparency of the film. Furthermore, the range for the particle diameter above overlaps with the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05: 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).
Saneto is silent with respect to a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 0.2 microns or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 400 or less per area of 697 microns x 539 microns, and a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 1.0 micron or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 10 or less per area of 697 microns x 539 microns.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a laminated film which is formed from identical materials and identical methods would result in an identical product. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the films of claim 1 are formed from the surface layer and the back layer and their respective compositions as required by the claim. Furthermore, the films are made by the co-extrusion methods including co-extrusion from a T-die at a temperature of 200 to 260°C and cooling from a metal roller at a temperature of 20 to 60°C as described in the instant specification (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0068]-[0075]).
Saneto and Kamikaya teach each of the compositions for the surface layer and the back layer as discussed above.
Saneto is silent with respect to the parameters of the methods of co-extrusion to form the laminated films.
Konokawa teaches a film and a manufacturing method for producing the film (Paragraph [0001]). The films are a blend of a vinylidene fluoride resin and an acrylic-based resin having a surface roughness of 0.1 to 20 nm (Paragraphs [0012]-[0014]). The films are formed from a method of melt-extrusion through a T-die at a temperature range of 200 to 260°C and cooling from a metal roller at a temperature of 35 to 75°C at a speed of 1 to 15 m/minute (Paragraphs [0059]-[0071]). This method provides the desired surface smoothness required above (Paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the laminated films of Saneto from the methods taught by Konokawa being melt-extrusion through a T-die at a temperature range of 200 to 260°C and cooling from a metal roller at a temperature of 35 to 75°C at a speed of 1 to 15 m/minute in order to provide a desired smoothness being an arithmetic surface roughness of 0.1 to 20 nm.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a roughness of 0.1 to 20 nm would only have convex portions less than 0.2 microns and 1 micron resulting in a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 0.2 microns or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 0 per area of 697 microns x 539 microns, and a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 1.0 micron or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 0 per area of 697 microns x 539 microns.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the laminated films of Saneto, Kamikaya and Konokawa are formed from identical materials and methods as applicant’s invention and would, therefore, have identical properties as well, including a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 0.2 microns or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 400 or less per area of 697 microns x 539 microns, and a number of convex portions existing on an outer surface of the back layer having a height of 1.0 micron or more relative to an average surface that is counted using a white interferometer is 10 or less per area of 697 microns x 539 microns.
Regarding claim 2, Saneto teaches the laminated films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kamikaya further teaches the content of the particles in the thermoplastic resin is 0.1 to 2 parts by weight (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Saneto teaches the laminated films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the surface roughness resulting from the methods taught by Konkawa is 0.1 to 20 nm.
Regarding claim 4, Saneto teaches the laminated films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Saneto further teaches the haze of the films being 11 or less, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0009]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saneto (JP 2017-206671) in view of Kamikaya (JP 2017-181990) and Konokawa et al. (US 2013/0202847).
Regarding claim 5, Saneto teaches the laminated films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The laminated films are further laminated to a molded body such as a resin molded article, a wooden product or a metal molded article (“a decorative layer that is laminated directly or indirectly on a side of the back layer of the multilayer film and is provided with a design by one or more types selected from printing, vapor deposition, painting, laminating and coloring”) (Paragraph [0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783