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 .
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 refers to the crosslinked particles as being both a “(meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin” and “(meth)acrylic acid-based resin” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if these two separate recitations are in reference to the same element. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have each portion of the claim recite “(meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin” and will be examined on the merits as such. Claims 2-6 are included in this rejection based on their ultimate dependency from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “[a] multilayer film comprising: the film according to claim 1, and a film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin laminated on one side of the film…” This recitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim which film the bolded film recitation portion is in reference to. That is, it is unclear if “the film” (as bolded and underlined) at the end of the highlighted portion of the claim, recited above, is in reference to the multilayer film, the film according to claim 1, or the film comprising the vinylidene fluoride-based resin. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to recite this claim as “[a] multilayer film comprising: the film according to claim 1, and a film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin laminated on one side of the film according to claim 1…” and will be examined on the merits as such. Claims 4 and 6 are included in this rejection based on their dependency from claim 3.
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 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.
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010-275434 A with a machine translation (29 page “Foreign Reference” submission on 30 January 2024) (hereinafter “Ukamura”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 1 Ukamura teaches a resin film comprising an acrylic thermoplastic resin (A) and an antiblocking agent (B) (abstract, and paragraphs [0017] and [0059]). Ukamura teaches the antiblocking agent (B) comprises fine particles, also referred to as organic crosslinked polymer fine particles, where the organic crosslinked polymer fine particles comprise crosslinked methyl methacrylate ((meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin) fine particles (paragraphs [0010], [0059] and [0063]). Ukamura teaches the acrylic thermoplastic resin (A) is a resin that has (meth)acrylic ester units (methacrylic acid ester-based resin as a main component) (paragraphs [0017] – [0018]). Ukamura teaches the average particle diameter of the anti-blocking agent fine particles (crosslinked (meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin particles) is preferably 0.1 to 5 µm (paragraphs [0059] – [0060]). Ukamura also teaches the (average) thickness of the resin film is preferably 10 to 350 µm (paragraph [0085]). These teachings correspond to the crosslinked (meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin particles having an average particle diameter of ((0.1µm/((10+350)/2)µm)*100%) 0.056% to ((5µm/((10+350)/2)µm)*100%) 2.78% with respect to an average thickness of the film, which overlaps the claimed range. Ukamura does not teach a vinylidene fluoride-based resin must be present in the film (entire reference), which corresponds to an embodiment where the film does not comprise vinylidene fluoride-based resin. Regarding the haze and clarity of the resin film, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose a haze of the film measured based on JIS K7136: 2000 is 5% or less, and a clarity (CLR) of the film calculated from the following formula is 97% or more, CLR = 100 x (Ic - Ir)/ (Ic + Ir) in which, Ic represents an amount of light that travels straight with respect to an optical axis of parallel light that is incident perpendicularly to a surface of the film, out of the light that passes through the film, and Ir represents an amount of narrow-angle scattered light whose angle with respect to the optical axis of parallel light is within ±2.5°, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Ukamura reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Ukamura teaches the content of the antiblocking agent (B) (crosslinked (meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin particles) with respect to the acrylic thermoplastic resin (A) (methacrylic acid ester-based resin) is preferably 0.005 to 3 mass% (paragraph [0066]). This teaching corresponds to an amount of the crosslinked (meth)acrylic acid ester-based resin particles is 0.005 (0.005 = 0.005/0.995 from x/(x+100)=0.00005 (0.005 mass%), where x=0.005) to 3.09 (3.09 = 3/0.97 from y/(y+100)=0.03 (3 mass%), where y=3.09) parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the methacrylic acid ester-based resin, which encompasses the claimed range.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2002-019051 A with a machine translation (10 page “Foreign Reference” submission on 30 January 2024) (hereinafter “Akatsu”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 3 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Ukamura does not explicitly teach the resin film is included in a multilayer film, where the multilayer film additionally comprises a film comprising vinylidene fluoride-base resin laminated on one side of the film. Akatsu teaches a fluororesin laminate comprising a two layer construction including a first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) made of a resin composition of a fluorovinylidene resin of 30-80 wt% and 20-70 wt%, and a second layer (film) made of an acrylic resin (abstract), which corresponds to a film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin laminated on one side of the film. Akatsu teaches the surface layer exhibits chemical resistance, which is unlikely to cause adhesion with a molded article made of another resin containing a plasticizer, and which can be easily applied by an external force. Fluorine-based resin laminates and heat-resistant fluororesin laminates, which are resistant to cracking, are unlikely to cause minute wrinkles in the surface layer in high-temperature environments, and are suitable for interior and exterior materials of automobiles and other vehicles (paragraph [0003]). Ukamura and Akatsu are analogous inventions in the field of acrylic films. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin film of Ukamura with the first surface layer of Akatsu to: impart chemical resistance to the film; prevent adhesion of the film with a molded article made of another resin containing a plasticizer; resist cracking of the film; and/or prevent the formation of minute wrinkles in the surface layer of the film in high-temperature environments. This combination of Ukamura and Akatsu corresponds to a multilayer film comprising the resin film (the film according to claim 1) of Ukamura and the first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) of Akatsu. Regarding the haze, clarity, and 60° specular gloss of the multilayer film, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose: a haze measured based on JIS K7136: 2000 is 5% or less; a clarity (CLR) is 97% or more; and a 60° specular gloss measured based on JIS Z8741: 1997 of an outer surface side of the film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin is 100 or more, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Ukamura and Akatsu combination teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 4 In addition, Akatsu teaches the first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) comprises: (A) one or two selected from a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride with hexafluoropropylene and (poly)vinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0006]); and (B) a methacrylic acid ester-based resin (paragraphs [0006] – [0007]). Akatsu teaches the first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) comprises: preferably (A) 30-70 parts by weight (mass) of the vinylidene fluoride resin, which overlaps the claimed range; and preferably (B) 30-70 parts by weight (mass) of the acrylic resin, which overlaps the claimed range, with respect to 100 parts by weight (mass) of a total of (A) and (B) (paragraph [0008]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0022334 (hereinafter “Abe”).Regarding claim 5 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Ukamura does not explicitly teach the resin film is included in a metallic decorative film. Abe teaches an acrylic resin film (abstract). Abe teaches film-like acrylic resin molded products (hereinafter, also referred to as “acrylic resin films”) have a feature of having excellent transparency, weather resistance, flexibility and processability. In the light of utilizing this feature, acrylic resin films are laminated on the surfaces of various resin molded articles, wood products, and metal molded articles (paragraph [0004]). Abe teaches the acrylic resin film can be subjected to a surface treatment for imparting various functions. Examples of the surface treatment include metal vapor deposition for imparting a metallic tone or preventing reflection (paragraph [0130]), which corresponds to a metallic decorative film. Ukamura and Abe are analogous inventions in the field of acrylic films. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin film of Ukamura with the metal vapor deposition of Abe to: impart a metallic aesthetic appearance to the film and/or prevent reflection of the film. The combination of Ukamura and Abe corresponds a layered configuration where the resin film (the film according to claim 1) of Ukamura is laminated as an outermost layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukamura and Akatsu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Abe.Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 3 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Akatsu teaches the first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) imparts chemical resistance to the film, prevents adhesion of the film to a different molded article, and prevents minute cracking at the surface (abstract and paragraph [0003]), which corresponds to the multilayer film according to claim 3 (from the combination of Ukamura and Akatsu) is laminated as an outer most layer with the first surface layer (film comprising vinylidene fluoride-based resin) of Akatsu being on an outside. In addition, Ukamura does not explicitly teach the resin film is included in a metallic decorative film. Abe teaches an acrylic resin film (abstract). Abe teaches film-like acrylic resin molded products (hereinafter, also referred to as “acrylic resin films”) have a feature of having excellent transparency, weather resistance, flexibility and processability. In the light of utilizing this feature, acrylic resin films are laminated on the surfaces of various resin molded articles, wood products, and metal molded articles (paragraph [0004]). Abe teaches the acrylic resin film can be subjected to a surface treatment for imparting various functions. Examples of the surface treatment include metal vapor deposition for imparting a metallic tone or preventing reflection (paragraph [0130]), which corresponds to a metallic decorative film. Ukamura, Akatsu and Abe are analogous inventions in the field of acrylic films. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayer film from the combination of Ukamura and Akatsu with the metal vapor deposition of Abe to: impart a metallic aesthetic appearance to the film and/or prevent reflection of the film. The combination of Ukamura, Akatsu and Abe corresponds a layered configuration where the resin film (the film according to claim 1) of Ukamura is laminated as an outermost layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0140636 teaches a multilayer film comprising a front surface layer (vinylidene-fluoride resin rich film) 3, a back surface layer (methacrylic acid ester resin rich film) 5, and a decorative film 6, where a metallic tone decoration is disclosed (paragraphs [0006], [0142] and [0158], and Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783