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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 6/17/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 6/17/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to incorporate formula (1), and claims 18-20 and 22 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 22 are objected to because of the following reasons:
With respect to claim 1, “cyclohexyl” and “cyclohexyl” are not divalent groups. It is noted that the divalent groups include “cyclohexylene” which is a divalent cyclohexane.
With respect to claim 4, “cyclohexyl” is not a divalent group.
With respect to claim 22, “ring” should be plural.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, the fluorene compound (D) comprises second and third reactive moieties, however, a first reactive moiety is not explicitly included. It is unclear whether there are three reactive moieties in compound (D).
With respect to claim 20, it is rejected for failing to overcome the deficiency of the claim from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (WO 2019/244791 is cited for its publication date, English-language equivalent US 2021/0155240 is relied upon for citations below) in view of evidence provided by Miyamoto (US 2015/0309632).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 22, Sato discloses an acrylic matte resin film having excellent appearance (abstract) comprising a phenol based antioxidant such as ADEKASTAB AO-40 (paragraph 0233) in an amount of 0.2-10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the resin (paragraph 0236). In Table 4, Example 10 comprising an acrylic rubber-containing polymer comprising 50 parts by mass rubber-containing multistage polymer (I) having two Tg of -48°C and -10°C (paragraph 0291; Table 2); 10 parts by mass of hydroxyl group-containing polymer (II) having a Tg of 77°C (paragraphs 0324 and 0328); and 0.7 parts by mass antioxidant. ADEKASTAB AO-40 is 4,4′-butylidene bis(6-tert-butyl-3-methylphenol) as evidenced by Miyamoto (paragraph 0077), which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
166
64
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and reads on claimed Formula 1 when l = 1, m = n = 0, q = r = 1, *L is
PNG
media_image1.png
166
64
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i.e., butylidene), R1 and R2 are hydroxyl, and “a ring” and “b ring” are 6-tert-butyl-3-methylphenyl (i.e., phenylene). ADEKSTAB AO-40 has a molecular weight of 383 g/mol and two benzene rings (i.e., C6 aromatic ring). Applicant’s own specification in Table 3 teaches that a benzene ring has total van der Waals volume of 72.15, which satisfies claimed inequality (3) of 0.34 ≤ (72.15*2) / 383 = 0.38
Sato fails to exemplify or disclose with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate a composition comprising two acrylic polymers having claimed Tg in combination with ADEKASTAB AO-40.
Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize ADEKASTAB AO-40 because Sato teaches that it is a well known equivalent to exemplified antioxidant (AO-60). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
With respect to claim 8, Example 10 of Sato includes 10 parts by mass hydroxyl group-containing acrylic polymer (II) and 90 parts by mass total acrylic polymers (Table 4), which provides for an amount of hydroxyl group-containing acrylic polymer of about 11 parts by mass.
With respect to claim 10, Example 10 of Table 4 has M2/M1 of 0.9.
With respect to claims 12, 13, and 16, Sato exemplifies a laminate film comprising a transparent acrylic resin layer and the matte acrylic resin composition of Example 10 (paragraph 0338), wherein the laminate film has a thickness of 75µm (paragraph 0341) and a thickness of the matt acrylic resin film is 7.5µm (paragraph 0342).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Sato teaches that the amount of fish eyes can be reduced by controlling gel content ratio (paragraphs 0090-0091), MFR retention ratio (paragraphs 0096-0097), the amount of hydroxyl group-containing polymer (paragraphs 0163-0164), and the amount of light stabilizer (paragraphs 0229-0230).
Sato does not explicitly disclose the number of fish eyes in 0.5 m2 of a film having thickness of 40 µm.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a film having low amount of fish eyes like claimed because Sato teaches that fish eyes are undesirable and how to optimize the film composition to reduce fish eyes.
With respect to claim 17, Sato teaches that the laminate film is laminated to a base material (paragraph 0242).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (WO 2019/244791 is cited for its publication date, English-language equivalent US 2021/0155240 is relied upon for citations below) in view of evidence provided by both Miyamoto (US 2015/0309632) and Kamimura (WO 2018/051716, machine translation).
The discussion with respect to Sato and Miyamoto in paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Neither Sato nor Miyamoto discloses the 5% weight loss temperature of ADEKASTAB AO-40 (4,4′-butylidene bis(6-tert-butyl-3-methylphenol)), however, Kamimura teaches that the boiling point of 4,4'-butylidenebis(6-t-butyl-3-methylphenol) is 475°C (paragraph 0108).
While Kamimura does not disclose the 5% weight loss temperature of 4,4'-butylidenebis(6-t-butyl-3-methylphenol), the boiling point of a compound of 475°C
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the 5% weight loss temperature is higher than 300°C
Claim 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (WO 2019/244791 is cited for its publication date, English-language equivalent US 2021/0155240 is relied upon for citations below) in view of Kauffman (US 7,713,452).
With respect to claim 18, Sato discloses an acrylic matte resin film comprising having excellent appearance (abstract). In Table 4, Example 10 comprising an acrylic rubber-containing polymer comprising 50 parts by mass rubber-containing multistage polymer (I) having two Tg of -48°C and -10°C (paragraph 0291; Table 2); 10 parts by mass of hydroxyl group-containing polymer (II) having a Tg of 77°C (paragraphs 0324 and 0328); and 1.1 parts by mass UV absorber. Sato teaches that the UV absorber can be any known one (paragraph 0209) but those having molecular weight of 300 or more is preferred in view of mold stain and long-term bleed out (paragraphs 0211-0212).
Sato fails to disclose a fluorene compound as a UV absorber.
Kauffman discloses UV absorbers including fluorene benzoxazole compound
PNG
media_image2.png
174
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(col. 20, lines 30-41) where Y includes “at least one” hydroxy and optionally substituted with SH, amine, nitro, nitroso col. 20, lines 58-64), i.e., at least two reactive functional groups. This fluorene compound has a molecular weight of at least about 350 g/mol (depending on the structure of Y) and has 3 benzene rings. Applicant’s own specification in Table 3 teaches that a benzene ring has total van der Waals volume of 72.15, which satisfies claimed inequality (3) of 0.34 ≤ (72.15*3) / 350 = 0.62. The calculated value of “0.62” is considered to be “at least” given that a polycyclic aromatic compound would be expected to have even higher total van der Waals volume. Kauffman teaches that the fluorene UV absorber is added to organic glass substrates such as poly(meth)acrylates (col. 23, lines 13-19).
Given that Sato discloses adding UV absorbing compounds and further given that Kauffman discloses an effective UV absorber having a fluorene structure which satisfies claimed inequality formula (3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known absorber as the UV in Sato. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights