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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-49 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is objected to because claim 26 contains subject matter that does not appear in the specification. Claim 26 recites a pattern layer, a colored substrate layer, an adhesive layer, and a transparent thermoplastic layer in that order. The specification makes no mention of a decorative sheet wherein the pattern layer is situated below the colored substrate. Because claim 26 was present in the application as filed, it constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter. However, the specification must be amended to include this subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(l).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15 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.
Claim 15 requires that a blend of high-density polyethylene (herein HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (herein LDPE) is present as recites a ratio of the two of 100:0 to 20:80. A ratio of HDPE to LDPE of 100:0 means that no LDPE would be present but still required to be present by the claim render the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication 2010-162748 to Ikeda cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 20 September 2023 (herein Ikeda, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0020). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least some of the polyethylene of the transparent film must be HDPE to achieve this density. Ikeda also teaches that the transparent film contains a nucleating agent (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 49, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the decorative sheet can be attached to wood boards, inorganic boards, metal plates, etc. and used as a decorative panel (paragraph 0053).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019). Ikeda also teaches that the transparent film contains a nucleating agent (paragraph 0021).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda.
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that the colored film is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials and there are no restrictions on the polyethylene (paragraph 0016). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ikeda’s teaching of forming the colored film of mainly polyethylene derived from plant raw materials encompasses a colored film containing other polyethylenes, and the only polyethylenes taught by Ikeda are plant-based HDPE and plant-based LDPE (paragraphs 0030-0033). Therefore, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprising a blend of plant-based HDPE and LDPE. Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0020). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least some of the polyethylene of the transparent film must be HDPE to achieve this density. Ikeda also teaches that the transparent film contains a nucleating agent (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
As discussed above, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprises plant-based HDPE and LDPE.
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019), and the only polyethylenes taught by Ikeda are plant-based HDPE and plant-based LDPE (paragraphs 0030-0033). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that the transparent film layer can comprise a blend of polyethylenes (paragraph 0022).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied above.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the nucleating agent is present in the transparent film at 0.1 to 3.0 wt% (1,000 to 30,000 ppm) (paragraph 0021) which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
As discussed above, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprises plant-based HDPE and LDPE, i.e. an HDPE to LDPE ratio of 99:1 to 1:99 which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
As discussed above, the Ikeda teaches a transparent layer comprising blends of HDPE and LDPE, i.e. an HDPE to LDPE ratio of 99:1 to 1:99 which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the nucleating agent is present in the transparent film at 0.1 to 3.0 wt% (1,000 to 30,000 ppm) (paragraph 0021) which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda.
Regarding claim 13, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that an adhesive layer corresponding to the adhesive layer recited in the instant claims can be present between the colored film and the transparent film (paragraph 0026). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0020) and a thickness of 20 µm to 100 µm (paragraph 0019). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Ikeda teaches that the colored film has a thickness of 50 to 100 µm and is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016) and there are no restrictions on the polyethylene (paragraph 0016). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ikeda’s teaching of forming the colored film of mainly polyethylene derived from plant raw materials encompasses a colored film containing other polyethylenes, and the only polyethylenes taught by Ikeda are plant-based HDPE and plant-based LDPE (paragraphs 0030-0033). Therefore, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprising a blend of plant-based HDPE and LDPE. Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that an HDPE with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 yields advantageous heat resistance (paragraph 0016). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the colored film of Ikeda to have a density of 0.94 to 0.97 to achieve advantageous heat resistance. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019), and the only polyethylenes taught by Ikeda are plant-based HDPE and plant-based LDPE (paragraphs 0030-0033). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that the transparent film layer can comprise a blend of polyethylenes (paragraph 0022). Also as discussed above, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprises plant-based HDPE and LDPE.
Regarding claim 15, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
As discussed above, the Ikeda teaches a transparent layer comprising blends of HDPE and LDPE, i.e. an HDPE to LDPE ratio of 99:1 to 1:99 which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 16, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
As discussed above, the teachings of Ikeda encompass a colored film comprises plant-based HDPE and LDPE. Ikeda teaches that the colored film has a plant-based polyethylene content of 70 wt% or more (paragraph 0016). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Ikeda teaches or renders obvious a colored film having a density of 0.94 to 0.97 and a transparent film with a density of 0.94 to 0.97. Combining these two densities yields a ratio that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 18, Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the transparent film has a thickness of 20 µm to 100 µm (paragraph 0019) the colored film has a thickness of 50 to 100 µm (paragraph 0016). Combining these two thicknesses yields a ratio that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 19-22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Japanese Publication 2011-225863 to Sato et al. cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 20 September 2023 (herein Sato, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 19-22 and 24-25, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that an adhesive layer corresponding to the adhesive layer recited in the instant claims can be present between the colored film and the transparent film (paragraph 0026), and a top coat layer corresponding to the surface protection layer recited in the instant claims can be provided on top of the transparent film (paragraph 0026). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019). Ikeda teaches that the colored is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Ikeda teaches that the top coat layer can be a polyurethane or an acrylic urethane (paragraph 0027).
Ikeda is silent as to the top coat layer containing a biomass-derived component.
Sato teaches a bio-polyurethane resin with a content of plant-derived raw materials that can be used as a binder for various coating agents and inks (paragraph 0001). Sato teaches that the polyurethane is obtained by reacting a polyol with an isocyanate component (paragraph 0012) and the polyurethane has a plant-derived content of 28 to 95 wt% (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that the isocyanate component can be a plant-derived isocyanate (paragraph 0016) and the polyol is either a plant-derived polycarbonate polyol, a plant-derived polyester polyol, or a plant-derived polyether polyol (paragraph 0015). Sato teaches that the polycarbonate polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a petroleum-derived carbonate component (paragraph 0012), the polyester polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a plant-derived carboxylic acid component (paragraph 0012), and the polyether polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that a petroleum-derived diol component can also be used as required (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plant-derived short chain diol of the polyester polyol with a petroleum-based diol because it amounts to the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Sato also teaches that the polyurethan can contain a petroleum-based methacrylate diol (paragraph 0033) which meets the limitations of being a urethane acrylate.
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 polyurethane of the top coat layer of Ikeda to be the polyurethane of Sato because it contributes to carbon neutrality aimed at combating global warming and reducing environmental impact (paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda and Sato as applied above and in further view of Japanese Publication 2020-055160 to Takemoto et al. cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 12 May 2025 (herein Takemoto, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 23, Ikeda and Sato teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Sato is silent as to the polyether polyol being a reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate.
Takemoto teaches a packaging material containing biomass-derived components (paragraph 0001) and comprising a surface resin layer, a printing layer, and a paper base layer wherein the printing layer contains a urethane (meth)acrylate binder which is a reaction product of a polyol, an isocyanate compound, and a hydroxy (meth)acrylate (paragraph 0009). Takemoto teaches that the polyol can be a polyester polyol, a polyether polyol, or a polycarbonate polyol wherein the polyether polyol is the reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate (paragraph 0027). Sato also teaches that either the polyfunctional alcohol or the polyfunctional isocyanate can be biomass-derived or fossil fuel-derived (paragraph 0034).
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 polyether polyol of Sato to be the polyether polyol of Takemoto because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 26-29 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sato and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0186135 to Higashikawa et al. (herein Higashikawa).
Regarding claims 26-29 and 31-32, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that an adhesive layer corresponding to the adhesive layer recited in the instant claims can be present between the colored film and the transparent film (paragraph 0026), and a pattern layer is printed on the colored film (paragraph 0026). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0020). Ikeda teaches that the colored is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that an HDPE with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 yields advantageous heat resistance (paragraph 0016). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the colored film of Ikeda to have a density of 0.94 to 0.97 to achieve advantageous heat resistance. Ikeda also teaches that the pattern layer contains a polyurethane binder and a pigment or colorant (paragraph 0018).
Ikeda is silent as to there being a pattern layer on the side of the colored film opposite the transparent film and the polyurethane of the pattern layer(s) containing a biomass-derived component.
Regarding a pattern layer on the side of the colored film opposite the transparent film, Higashikawa teaches a decorative sheet (abstract) comprising in order, a primer layer, a concealing layer, a primary film layer, a pattern printing layer, an adhesive layer, a transparent resin layer, and a top coat layer (paragraph 0026). Higashikawa teaches that the concealing layer is optional and only needed to impart opacity (paragraph 0033). Higashikawa teaches that the primary film layer can be made from polyethylene (paragraph 0033). Higashikawa teaches that the pattern layer may be made of the same material as the primer layer (paragraph 0035) and as such, the pattern layer of Higashikawa meets the limitations of the claimed pattern layer.
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 decorative sheet of Ikeda to include the primer layer made from the same material as the pattern layer of Higashikawa because it would secure adhesion of the decorative sheet to a substrate (paragraph 0029).
Regarding the polyurethane of the pattern layer(s) containing a biomass-derived component, Sato teaches a bio-polyurethane resin with a content of plant-derived raw materials that can be used as a binder for various coating agents and inks (paragraph 0001). Sato teaches that the polyurethane is obtained by reacting a polyol with an isocyanate component (paragraph 0012) and the polyurethane has a plant-derived content of 28 to 95 wt% (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that the isocyanate component can be a plant-derived isocyanate (paragraph 0016) and the polyol is either a plant-derived polycarbonate polyol, a plant-derived polyester polyol, or a plant-derived polyether polyol (paragraph 0015). Sato teaches that the polycarbonate polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a petroleum-derived carbonate component (paragraph 0012), the polyester polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a plant-derived carboxylic acid component (paragraph 0012), and the polyether polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that a petroleum-derived diol component can also be used as required (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plant-derived short chain diol of the polyester polyol with a petroleum-based diol because it amounts to the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Sato also teaches that the polyurethan can contain a petroleum-based methacrylate diol (paragraph 0033) which meets the limitations of being a urethane acrylate.
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 polyurethane of the pattern layer(s) of Ikeda to be the polyurethane of Sato because it contributes to carbon neutrality aimed at combating global warming and reducing environmental impact (paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda, Higashikawa, and Sato as applied above and in further view of Takemoto.
Regarding claim 30, Ikeda, Higashikawa, and Sato teach all the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above.
Sato is silent as to the polyether polyol being a reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate.
Takemoto teaches a packaging material containing biomass-derived components (paragraph 0001) and comprising a surface resin layer, a printing layer, and a paper base layer wherein the printing layer contains a urethane (meth)acrylate binder which is a reaction product of a polyol, an isocyanate compound, and a hydroxy (meth)acrylate (paragraph 0009). Takemoto teaches that the polyol can be a polyester polyol, a polyether polyol, or a polycarbonate polyol wherein the polyether polyol is the reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate (paragraph 0027). Sato also teaches that either the polyfunctional alcohol or the polyfunctional isocyanate can be biomass-derived or fossil fuel-derived (paragraph 0034).
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 polyether polyol of Sato to be the polyether polyol of Takemoto because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 33-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Sato.
Regarding claims 33-36 and 38-39, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that an adhesive layer corresponding to the adhesive layer recited in the instant claims can be present between the colored film and the transparent film (paragraph 0026), a pattern layer corresponding to the pattern layer recited in the instant claims is printed on the colored film (paragraph 0026), and a top coat layer corresponding to the surface protection layer recited in the instant claims can be provided on top of the transparent film (paragraph 0026). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0020). Ikeda teaches that the colored is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that an HDPE with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 yields advantageous heat resistance (paragraph 0016). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the colored film of Ikeda to have a density of 0.94 to 0.97 to achieve advantageous heat resistance. Ikeda also teaches that the pattern layer contains a polyurethane binder and a pigment or colorant (paragraph 0018). Ikeda teaches that the top coat layer can be a polyurethane or an acrylic urethane (paragraph 0027).
Ikeda is silent as to the pattern layer and top coat layer containing a biomass-derived component.
Sato teaches a bio-polyurethane resin with a content of plant-derived raw materials that can be used as a binder for various coating agents and inks (paragraph 0001). Sato teaches that the polyurethane is obtained by reacting a polyol with an isocyanate component (paragraph 0012) and the polyurethane has a plant-derived content of 28 to 95 wt% (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that the isocyanate component can be a plant-derived isocyanate (paragraph 0016) and the polyol is either a plant-derived polycarbonate polyol, a plant-derived polyester polyol, or a plant-derived polyether polyol (paragraph 0015). Sato teaches that the polycarbonate polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a petroleum-derived carbonate component (paragraph 0012), the polyester polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol component and a plant-derived carboxylic acid component (paragraph 0012), and the polyether polyol is formed from a plant-derived short chain diol (paragraph 0012). Sato teaches that a petroleum-derived diol component can also be used as required (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the plant-derived short chain diol of the polyester polyol with a petroleum-based diol because it amounts to the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Sato also teaches that the polyurethan can contain a petroleum-based methacrylate diol (paragraph 0033) which meets the limitations of being a urethane acrylate.
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 polyurethane of the top coat layer and the pattern layer of Ikeda to be the polyurethane of Sato because it contributes to carbon neutrality aimed at combating global warming and reducing environmental impact (paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda and Sato as applied above and in further view of Takemoto.
Regarding claim 37, Ikeda and Sato teach all the limitations of claim 35 as discussed above.
Sato is silent as to the polyether polyol being a reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate.
Takemoto teaches a packaging material containing biomass-derived components (paragraph 0001) and comprising a surface resin layer, a printing layer, and a paper base layer wherein the printing layer contains a urethane (meth)acrylate binder which is a reaction product of a polyol, an isocyanate compound, and a hydroxy (meth)acrylate (paragraph 0009). Takemoto teaches that the polyol can be a polyester polyol, a polyether polyol, or a polycarbonate polyol wherein the polyether polyol is the reaction product of a polyfunctional alcohol and a polyfunctional isocyanate (paragraph 0027). Sato also teaches that either the polyfunctional alcohol or the polyfunctional isocyanate can be biomass-derived or fossil fuel-derived (paragraph 0034).
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 polyether polyol of Sato to be the polyether polyol of Takemoto because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda.
Regarding claim 40, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film corresponding to the transparent resin layer recited in the instant claims laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that an adhesive layer corresponding to the adhesive layer recited in the instant claims can be present between the colored film and the transparent film (paragraph 0026). Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019). Ikeda teaches that the colored is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that an HDPE with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 yields advantageous heat resistance (paragraph 0016). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the colored film of Ikeda to have a density of 0.94 to 0.97 to achieve advantageous heat resistance. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Sato teaches that the colored film layer contains an inorganic pigment such as titanium oxide (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 41¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Sato teaches that the colored film layer contains an inorganic pigment such as titanium oxide (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 42¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the transparent film contains 80 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0019) and the colored film contains 70 wt% or more of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Combining these two teachings yields an amount of the decorative sheet as a whole derived from biomass that meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 43¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the decorative sheet has a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0008). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 44-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda.
Regarding claim 44, Ikeda teaches a decorative sheet corresponding to the decorative sheet recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0001) comprising a transparent film laminated on a colored film corresponding to the colored substrate layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0007). Ikeda teaches that the colored is made mainly of polyethylene derived from plant raw materials (paragraph 0016). Furthermore, Ikeda teaches that an HDPE with a density of 0.94 to 0.97 yields advantageous heat resistance (paragraph 0016). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the colored film of Ikeda to have a density of 0.94 to 0.97 to achieve advantageous heat resistance. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Sato teaches that the colored film layer contains an inorganic pigment such as titanium oxide (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 45¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 44 as discussed above.
Sato teaches that the colored film layer contains an inorganic pigment such as titanium oxide (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 46¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 44 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the decorative sheet has a density of 0.94 to 0.97 (paragraph 0008). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 47¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 44 as discussed above.
Ikeda teaches that the colored film has a thickness of 50 to 100 µm and the transparent film has a thickness of 20 to 100 µm (paragraph 0007). Combining these two thicknesses yields a total thickness of the decorative sheet of 70 to 200 µm.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda as applied above and in view of Higashikawa.
Regarding claim 48¸Ikeda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ikeda is silent as to there being a primer layer on the underside of the colored film.
Higashikawa teaches a decorative sheet (abstract) comprising in order, a primer layer, a concealing layer, a primary film layer, a pattern printing layer, an adhesive layer, a transparent resin layer, and a top coat layer (paragraph 0026). Higashikawa teaches that the concealing layer is optional and only needed to impart opacity (paragraph 0033). Higashikawa teaches that the primary film layer can be made from polyethylene (paragraph 0033).
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 decorative sheet of Ikeda to include the primer layer of Higashikawa because it would secure adhesion of the decorative sheet to a substrate (paragraph 0029).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783