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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4: “said aircraft cabin interior structure selected comprising at least one of” should read “said aircraft cabin interior structure is selected from the group consisting of at least one of”.
Claim 1, line 37: “2mm” should read “2 mm”.
Claim 1, line 37: “8mm” should read “8 mm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2021/0269138 A1, “Young”) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 10-1347245 B1, “Hwang”) and Sutou et al. (US 2018/0043653 A1, “Sutou”) and the evidence provided by SpecialChem (Thermoplastic Polyurethanes (TPU): How to select the right grade?). The disclosure of Hwang is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 10 September 2025.
With respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15, Young discloses a decorative laminate for interior structural components of a vehicle including aircraft ([0036]). The structures include partitions, stowage bins (i.e., storage bins), ceiling panels, floor panels, lavatory panels, galley panels, cargo bins, and sidewalls ([0036-0037]). The decorative laminate comprises a first laminate layer 162a, second laminate layer 163b, decorative layer 176, and adhesive layer 190 ([0039], [0049], [0058]). The outer first laminate layer is transparent (i.e., is optically transparent) ([0024]). Given that the decorative laminate is applied to a structural component of a vehicle or aircraft, it is clear that the interior would necessarily have a first region with the decorative laminate thereon and a second region immediately adjacent to the first region without the decorative laminate where the decorative laminate would necessarily be configured to coat the entirety of the structure surface exterior first region. For instance, from Fig. 2, it can be seen that when the decorative laminate 10 is applied to a storage bin 16 (the first region), the area surrounding and in between each storage bin (the second region) would not have a decorative laminate applied, and thus the laminate is configured to cover substantially entirely only the high-risk damage region. All interior structural components of aircraft would be considered a high-risk damage area given that aircraft are used every day by numerous passengers. The first laminate layer 162a corresponds to the claimed single layer. While there may be other layers in addition to the first laminate layer 162a present, in light of the open-ended language of the claims (i.e., “comprising”), nothing in the claims precludes the inclusion of additional layers. Given the layer 162a is transparent, the decorative layer is visually unencumbered by the single layer self-adhering and self-healing protective partial outer coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Young does not disclose that the decorative laminate comprises a self-adhering and self-healing material nor disclose wherein the adhesive layer is a transparent adhesive layer comprising at least one of a transparent pressure-sensitive adhesive film layer and a spray adhesive, wherein the spray adhesive is configured to dry into the transparent adhesive layer.
Hwang teaches a self-healing polyurethane composition for vehicle interior materials such as instrument panels and door trims ([0001]). The polyurethane is a thermoplastic polyurethane (page 5, line 10). The composition also comprises an ultraviolet blocker (page 7, line 12) (i.e., the composition is a UV resistant material). The composition has scratch resistance and scratch self-healing properties (page 5, lines 1-5).
Young and Hwang are analogous inventions in the field of laminates applied to vehicle interiors.
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 outer first laminate layer 162a of Young to include the polyurethane composition containing a UV blocker as taught by Hwang in order to provide interior structural components with scratch-resistance and scratch self-healing properties (Hwang, page 5, lines 1-5). The modified layer 162a of Young in view of Hwang corresponds to the claimed single layer of self-adhering and self-healing protective partial outer coating layer.
Young in view of Hwang does not disclose wherein the adhesive layer is a transparent adhesive layer comprising at least one of a transparent pressure-sensitive adhesive film layer and a spray adhesive, wherein the spray adhesive is configured to dry into the transparent adhesive layer.
Sutou teaches a decorative resin molded article for vehicle interiors comprising a decorative sheet on a resin molded article ([0002], [0303]). An adhesive is provided to improve adhesion between the decorative sheet and the resin molded article ([0092], [0244]). The adhesive is made from thermoplastic polyurethane ([0246]) which is well known, as evidenced by SpecialChem, to have a crystal clear transparency (page 9, “Sports and leisure”). Given that the adhesive would necessarily dry into a transparent adhesive layer, it would necessarily be considered a spray adhesive.
Young in view of Hwang and Sutou are analogous inventions in the field of decorative articles for vehicle interiors.
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 adhesive layer of Young in view of Hwang to be the transparent thermoplastic polyurethane adhesive of Sutou in order to provide an adhesive that improves the adhesion between the decorative laminate and the structural component to which the laminate is applied.
Regarding the partial outer coating layer having a Young’s modulus ranging from about 10 MPa to about 120 MPa, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Young in view of Hwang and Sutou regarding the partial outer coating layer having this property, given that Young in view of Hwang and Sutou discloses an otherwise identical partial outer coating layer made from an otherwise identical thermoplastic polyurethane as that presently claimed, it is clear that the partial outer coating layer of Young in view of Hwang and Sutou would necessarily inherently have a Young’s modulus ranging from about 10 MPa to about 120 MPa, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the partial outer coating layer comprising a UV/visible light transmittance value ranging from about 0% to about 20% UV/visible light transmittance for UV/visible light wavelengths ranging from about 180 nm to about 800 nm, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Young in view of Hwang and Sutou regarding the partial outer coating layer having this property, given that Young in view of Hwang and Sutou discloses an otherwise identical partial outer coating layer made from an otherwise identical thermoplastic polyurethane that is UV/visible light-resistant as that presently claimed, it is clear that the partial outer coating layer of Young in view of Hwang and Sutou would necessarily inherently have a UV/visible light transmittance value ranging from about 0% to about 20% UV/visible light transmittance for UV/visible light wavelengths ranging from about 180 nm to about 800 nm, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the thickness of the single layer self-adhering and self-healing protective partial outer coating being about 2 mm to about 8 mm, while there is no disclosure from Young in view of Hwang and Sutou regarding the thickness being within the claimed range, Young discloses the layers 162 can have a suitable thickness ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any thickness, including that presently claimed, in order to provide a protective coating having desired thickness according to desired end use.
With respect to claim 31, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Young in view of Hwang and Sutou regarding the partial outer coating layer being configured to self-heal at a temperature of about 70°F to about 120°F, given that Young in view of Hwang and Sutou discloses an otherwise identical partial outer coating layer made from an otherwise identical thermoplastic polyurethane as that presently claimed, it is clear the partial outer coating of Young in view of Hwang and Sutou would necessarily inherently be configured to self-heal at a temperature of about 70°F to about 120°F, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 32, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Young in view of Hwang and Sutou regarding the partial outer coating layer being configured to self-heal at a temperature of about 100°F to about 140°F, given that Young in view of Hwang and Sutou discloses an otherwise identical partial outer coating layer made from an otherwise identical thermoplastic polyurethane as that presently claimed, it is clear the partial outer coating of Young in view of Hwang and Sutou would necessarily inherently be configured to self-heal at a temperature of about 100°F to about 140°F, absent evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment to claim 9, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Due to the cancellation of claim 14, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 14 are withdrawn.
Due to the amendment to claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 5-8, and 12 over Dellock et al. (US 2020/0377040 A1, “Dellock”) are withdrawn. This is because Dellock does not disclose the use of its vehicle appliques in aircraft.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder has been considered but is denied because no claims are presently allowable.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Young in view of Hwang, Applicant argues Young does not disclose the decorative laminate comprises a self-healing material.
In response to Applicant’s argument, this is not found persuasive. The examiner acknowledges that Young does not disclose the decorative laminate comprises a self-healing material; however, Young is not being used to meet this limitation. Instead, Hwang is used. As set forth above, Hwang teaches a self-healing polyurethane composition for vehicle interior materials such as instrument panels and door trims ([0001]). The polyurethane is a thermoplastic polyurethane (page 5, line 10). The composition also comprises an ultraviolet blocker (page 7, line 12) (i.e., the composition is a UV resistant material). The composition has scratch resistance and scratch self-healing properties (page 5, lines 1-5). Young and Hwang are analogous inventions in the field of laminates applied to vehicle interiors. Therefore, 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 outer first laminate layer 162a of Young to include the polyurethane composition containing a UV blocker as taught by Hwang in order to provide interior structural components with scratch-resistance and scratch self-healing properties (Hwang, page 5, lines 1-5). The modified layer 162a of Young in view of Hwang corresponds to the claimed single layer of self-adhering and self-healing protective partial outer coating layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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 E 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights