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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered. This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 2/13/2026. Currently claims 1-20, and 28 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20, and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-20, 26-28, and 30-31 of co-pending Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the claimed scope is encompassed by the claims of co-pending Application No. 18/519,713. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique comprising: optionally, a topcoat layer; an in-situ polymerized carrier layer; a color layer; and optionally, an adhesive layer, wherein the carrier layer is in-situ polymerized on the color layer adjacent thereto, and wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has at least one of the following properties: (a) a peak loss factor of at least about 0.5 when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein, (b) a peak loss factor that occurs at a temperature of at least about 35° C. when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein, or (c) half-height loss factors occurring across a temperature span of less than about 40° C. when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein; by teaching a paint film applique comprising: optionally, a topcoat layer; a colored, in-situ polymerized carrier layer; optionally, a distinct color layer; and optionally, an adhesive layer, wherein half-height loss factors of the colored, in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40°C. when tested as a standalone film using a dynamic mechanical analyzer in tension mode and sample sizes having a length of 5 mm to 12 mm, a width of 4 mm to 8 mm, and a thickness of 0.02 mm to 0.2 mm measured at a frequency of 1 Hz, a strain of 0.3%, and a ramp rate of 3°C./min (claim 1).
Additionally, application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer comprises a reaction product of components comprising an aliphatic poly-isocyanate and at least three polyols, one of which polyols has a number average molecular weight between 1,400 and 2,000, and one of which polyols is a polyether polyol (claim 26). Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) also teaches a color layer covalently bonded to the carrier layer (claim 29).
Moreover, application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer comprises a reaction product of components comprising an aliphatic poly-isocyanate and at least three polyols, one of which polyols has a number average molecular weight between 900 and 1,400, and one of which polyols is a polyether polyol (claim 27).
Regarding Claim 2, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the paint film applique is opaque (claim 2)
Regarding Claim 3, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, comprising a color layer. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the color layer comprises a pigment.
Regarding Claim 4, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the color layer is in-situ polymerized (claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set of 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is defect-free (claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is polyurethane-based (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is essentially free of unreacted solvent (claim 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the paint film applique comprises the topcoat layer, the in-situ polymerized carrier layer, the color layer, and the adhesive layer in sequence (claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the paint film applique comprises the topcoat layer, the color layer, the in-situ polymerized carrier layer, and the adhesive layer in sequence (claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is colored (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, comprising the topcoat layer (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the topcoat layer is polyurethane-based (claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor of at least about 0.5 when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein (claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor that occurs at a temperature of at least about 35° C. when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein (claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40° C. when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method described herein (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the adhesive layer is present and comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive (claim 16).
Regarding Claim 17, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, further comprising a release film on an exterior surface of the adhesive layer (claim 17).
Regarding Claim 18, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein overall thickness of the paint film applique is less than about 130 microns thick (claim 18)
Regarding Claim 19, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches an article comprising at least one surface having on at least a portion thereof the paint film applique of claim 1 (claim 19).
Regarding Claim 20, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches an article of claim 19, wherein the article comprises a motorized vehicle (claim 20).
Regarding Claim 28, Application No. 18/519,713 (claim set submitted on 10/16/2025) teaches a paint film applique, wherein the optional topcoat layer has a thickness of about 5 microns to about 20 microns (claim 28).
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-4, 6, 8-20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Ho et al. (WO 2006/118883 A2), hereafter, referred to as “Ho”, in view of Takeshi et al. (WO 2016/076337 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Takeshi”, in view of McGuire, Jr., et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0059167 A1), hereafter, referred to as “McGuire '167”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ho teaches a paint film applique (film to protect painted surface (paint applique); page 1, lines 4-5) comprising: optionally, a topcoat layer (multilayer protective film comprises first layer (topcoat); abstract; page 1, lines 28-32); an in-situ polymerized carrier layer, wherein the carrier layer (multilayer film comprises second layer (carrier layer) comprised of polyurethane (polymerized), and is formed within the multilayer film by extruding thermoplastic polyurethane at high temperature onto the first layer (in-situ polymerization); abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 2, line 1; page 6, lines 7-9; page 7, lines 27-30); a color layer (multilayer film wherein any combination of the layers within the multilayer film may be colored (color layer); page 6, lines 7-9), thereby forming a multilayer film where carrier layer in adjacent to color layer; and optionally, an adhesive layer (multilayer protective film comprises pressure sensitive adhesive layer; page 1, lines 21-29).
Ho teaches that the colored, in-situ polymerized carrier layer comprises the reaction product of components comprising an aliphatic polyisocyanate and at least three polyols by teaching in example 18 and 19 (page 14-15) to use aliphatic polyisocyanate and polyols (polyester polyol fomrez 55-225, polyester polyol fomrez 55-112, and polycaprolactone type in example 18) (poly( cycloaliphatic carbonate) polyol PC-1667, polycarbonate polyol PC- 1122, and polycaprolactone polyol in Example 19). Additionally, the use of polyether polyols are known to bring low temperature flexibility and weather (UV) resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use aliphatic polyisocyanate and at least three polyols, such as polyester polyether and polycaprolactone type to optimize the desired property for and end product. It would also have been obvious that the property would also depend on the average molecular weight of the polyols. Therefore, the use of polyols having molecular weigh between 1400 and 2000, and/or between 900 and 1400, would be a matter or optimization performed under routine experimentation.
Ho teaches a paint film applique, but Ho does not disclose wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method. However, Takeshi teaches wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method (polymer film has a loss factor value of 0.20 or more within the temperature range of-40 to 30 degrees C; abstract; page 59, paragraphs [4]-[5]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method, as previously disclosed by Takeshi, for providing multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats that are produced to withstand color loss.
But Ho and Takeshi fails to explicitly teach that a color layer is covalently bonded to the carrier layer. However, McGuire '167 teaches that chemistry of adjacent layers within the paint replacement film are selected such that covalent bonds form between the layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing the invention, to have modified the paint film applique by using a known technique of having color layer is covalently bonded to the carrier layer, because that would improve interlayer adhesion of the paint film applique, thereby achieve improved resistance to interlayer delamination (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 2, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the paint film applique is opaque (multilayer film is opaque; page 6, lines 4-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the carrier layer comprises pigment (one or more layer (carrier layer) comprises pigment; page 6, lines 8-9).
Regarding Claim 4, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the color layer is in-situ polymerized (multilayer film comprises second layer comprised of polyurethane (polymerized), wherein layer is of distinct color (color layer), and is formed within the multilayer film by extruding thermoplastic polyurethane at high temperature onto the first layer (in-situ polymerization); abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 2, line 1; page 6, lines 7-9; page 7, lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 6, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further
teaches wherein the carrier layer is polyurethane-based (multilayer film comprises second
layer (carrier layer) comprised of polyurethane; abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 2, line 1;
page 6, lines 7-9; page 7, lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 8, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the paint film applique comprises the topcoat layer, the in-situ polymerized
carrier layer, and the adhesive layer in sequence (multilayer protective film comprises first layer 12 (topcoat), second TPU layer 14 (in-situ polymerized carrier layer) and third PSA layer (adhesive layer) in order; abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 9, lines 14-19; figure 1), but Ho does not disclose wherein the distinct color layer is present just above the adhesive layer. However, McGuire '167 teaches wherein a distinct color layer is present just above an adhesive layer (multilayer film comprising a pigmented layer (distinct color layer) that is
between an adhesive layer and a polymer layer; abstract). It would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film
applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein a distinct color
layer is present just above an adhesive layer, as previously disclosed by McGuire '167, for
providing multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats.
Regarding Claim 9, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the paint film applique comprises the topcoat layer, the in-situ polymerized
carrier layer, and the adhesive layer in sequence (multilayer protective film comprises first layer 12 (topcoat), second TPU layer 14 (in-situ polymerized carrier layer) and third PSA layer (adhesive layer) in order; abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 9, lines 14-19; figure 1), but Ho does not disclose wherein the distinct color layer is present just below the topcoat layer.
However, McGuire '167 teaches wherein a distinct color layer is present just below a topcoat layer (multilayer film comprising a pigmented layer (distinct color layer) that is between an adhesive layer and a polymer (topcoat) layer; abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein a distinct color layer is present just below a topcoat layer, as previously disclosed as multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats.
Regarding Claim 10, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further
teaches wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is, like the color layer, also colored
(multilayer film comprises second layer (carrier layer) comprised of polyurethane (polymerized), wherein layer is colored; abstract; page 1, lines 28-32; page 2, line 1; page 6,
lines 7-9; page 7, lines 27-30).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further
teaches wherein the paint film applique comprises the topcoat layer (multilayer protective
film comprises first layer (topcoat); abstract; page 1, lines 28-32). Ho further teaches wherein the topcoat layer is polyurethane-based (multilayer protective film comprises first layer (topcoat), wherein layer consists of polyurethane; abstract; page 1, lines 28-32).
Regarding Claim 13, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, but Ho does not
disclose wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor of at least about
0.5 when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method. However, Takeshi teaches wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor of at least about 0.5 when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method (polymer film has a loss factor value of 0.20 or more within the temperature range of -40 to 30 degrees C; abstract; page 59, paragraphs [4]-[5]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor of at least about 0.5 when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method, as previously disclosed by Takeshi, for providing multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats that are produced to withstand color loss.
Regarding Claim 14, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, but Ho does not disclose wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor that occurs at about a temperature of at least about 35 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method. However, Takeshi teaches wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor that occurs at about a temperature of at least about 35 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method (polymer film has a loss factor value of 0.20 or more within the temperature range of -40 to 30 degrees C; abstract; page 59, paragraphs [4]-[5]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer has a peak loss factor that occurs at about a temperature of at least about 35 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method, as previously disclosed by Takeshi, for providing multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats that are produced to withstand color loss.
Regarding Claim 15, Ho teaches a paint film applique, but Ho does not disclose wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method. However, Takeshi teaches wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method (polymer film has a loss factor value of 0.20 or more within the temperature range of-40 to 30 degrees C; abstract; page 59, paragraphs [4]-[5]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein half-height loss factors of the in-situ polymerized carrier layer occur across a temperature span of less than about 40 degrees C when tested as a standalone film according to the Loss Factor Test Method, as previously disclosed by Takeshi, for providing multilayer polymeric films that can be used as paint replacements or protective paint topcoats that are produced to withstand color loss.
Regarding Claim 16, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further teaches wherein the adhesive layer is present and comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive
(multilayer protective film comprises pressure sensitive adhesive layer; page 1, lines 21-29).
Regarding Claim 17, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 16, and Ho further teaches wherein the paint film applique further comprises a release film on an exterior surface of the adhesive layer (multilayer protective film comprises pressure sensitive adhesive layer 16 with a releasable carrier linear (release film) on the bottom (exterior) of said adhesive layer; page 1, lines 21-29; page 9, lines 14-19; figure 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, and Ho further
teaches wherein overall thickness of the paint film applique is less than about 130 microns
thick (examples 9-14 all have an overall thickness of 20 microns); page 13, lines 15-24).
Regarding Claim 19, Ho teaches an article (film is applied to a vehicle body part;
page 2, lines 15-16) comprising at least one surface having on at least a portion thereof the
paint film applique of claim 1 (film conforms to the shape of a vehicle body part (surface
having at least a portion of film), wherein the film comprises a first layer, a polyurethane-based
colored second layer and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer (paint film applique of claim 1); page 2, lines 15-26; page 6, lines 7-9).
Regarding Claim 20, Ho teaches the article of claim 19, and Ho further teaches wherein the article comprises a motorized vehicle (film is applied to a vehicle body part; page 2, lines 15-16).
Regarding Claim 28, Ho teaches that the topcoat layer has a thickness of about 5 microns to about 20 microns by teaching in examples 1-3 that the clear film thickness was about 11-12 microns thick.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Ho et al. (WO 2006/118883 A2), in view of Takeshi et al. (WO 2016/076337 A1), in view of McGuire, Jr., et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0059167 A1), in view of McGuire, Jr., et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0241261 A1) hereafter, referred to as “McGuire '261”.
Regarding Claim 5, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, but Ho does not
disclose wherein the carrier layer is defect-free. However, McGuire '261 teaches wherein the carrier layer is defect-free (in-situ polymer film (carrier layer) does not have any defects (defect-free); paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein the carrier layer is defect free,
as previously disclosed by McGuire '261, for providing multilayer films that can be formed in-situ without any noticeable defects.
Regarding Claim 7, Ho teaches the paint film applique of claim 1, but Ho does not
disclose wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is essentially free of unreacted solvent. However, McGuire '261 teaches wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is essentially free of unreacted solvent (in-situ polymer film (carrier layer) prepared without solvents; paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the paint film applique, as previously disclosed by Ho, in order to have provided wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is essentially free of unreacted solvent, as previously disclosed by McGuire '261, in order to have provided wherein the in-situ polymerized carrier layer is essentially free of unreacted solvent, as previously disclosed by McGuire '261, for providing multilayer films that can be formed in-situ with maximized processing efficiency (McGuire '261: paragraph (0061 ]).
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the amended independent claims, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742