DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatani et al. (US 2019/0358932 A1) in view of Masterbond (NPL), Ko (US 5,308,887 A), and Polastri et al. (US 2017/0226357 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, Shimatani teaches a functional film having a surface energy and a cap sheet adjacent to the functional film having a surface energy. (Fig. 2 and 5). Shimatani teaches the cap sheet comprises a cap sheet substrate, base layer, and a cap sheet adhesive layer, where the cap sheet adhesive layer is adjacent to the functional film and defining the surface energy of the cap sheet (Paragraph 0050; Fig 2 and 5, Item 3). Shimatani teaches the functional film comprises a functional film substrate, base material, (Item 1) and a top coat (Item 2) defining the surface energy of the functional film (Abstract; Fig. 2 and 5).
Shimatani teaches adhesive force, peel strength, between top coat and the cap adhesive layer is 2N/20 mm or greater. (Paragraph 0015). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Shimatani does not specifically teach the ratio of surface energy of the cap sheet to the functional film is no greater than 2.6 or about 0.1 to about 2.5.
Masterbond teaches the substrate, Shimatani’s substrate, should have a surface energy greater than surface energy of the adhesive, Shimatani’s cap sheet adhesive layer, in order to ensure proper bond formation. This would create a surface energy ratio of less than 1. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the surface energy ratio to the claimed range to ensure proper bond formation between the cap sheet and the functional film of Shimatani.
Shimatani does not specifically teach a surface energy modifying additive comprising a silicon-containing polymer and/or PDMS, in the acrylic adhesive.
Ko teaches an acrylic adhesive that includes a surface energy modifying additive of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). (Abstract; Claim 26 of Ko). Ko teaches adding a polydimethylsiloxane to an adhesive improves adhesion performance at low temperatures and ensure proper adherence to paint. (Column 3-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use an acrylic adhesive with an additive of PDMS as taught by Ko in Shimatani for improve paint adhesion and better adhesion at lower temperatures.
Shimatani does not specifically teach the top coat includes a surface-energy modifying additive. Shimatani teaches the top coat can be paint. (Paragraph 0020).
Polastri teaches adding a surface energy modifying additive of PTFE to paint. (Abstract; Paragraph 0008). Polastri teaches adding PTFE to paint improves the weatherability of the paint. (Paragraph 0097). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add PTFE to paint composition of Shimatani.
Claim 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatani in view of Masterbond, Chang et al. (US 2006/0159915 A1), and Polastri.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 5-7, Shimatani teaches a functional film having a surface energy and a cap sheet adjacent to the functional film having a surface energy. (Fig. 2 and 5). Shimatani teaches the cap sheet comprises a cap sheet substrate, base layer, and a cap sheet adhesive layer, where the cap sheet adhesive layer is adjacent to the functional film and defining the surface energy of the cap sheet (Paragraph 0050; Fig 2 and 5, Item 3). Shimatani teaches the functional film comprises a functional film substrate, base material, (Item 1) and a top coat (Item 2) defining the surface energy of the functional film (Abstract; Fig. 2 and 5).
Shimatani teaches adhesive force, peel strength, between top coat and the cap adhesive layer is 2N/20 mm or greater. (Paragraph 0015). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Shimatani does not specifically teach the ratio of surface energy of the cap sheet to the functional film is no greater than 2.6 or about 0.1 to about 2.5.
Masterbond teaches the substrate, Shimatani’s substrate, should have a surface energy greater than surface energy of the adhesive, Shimatani’s cap sheet adhesive layer, in order to ensure proper bond formation. This would create a surface energy ratio of less than 1. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the surface energy ratio to the claimed range to ensure proper bond formation between the cap sheet and the functional film of Shimatani.
Shimatani does not specifically teach a surface energy modifying additive comprising a silicon-containing polymer and/or PDMS and/or polyether siloxane copolymers, in the acrylic adhesive.
Chang teaches as acrylic PSA that includes polyether siloxane copolymer, a polyether-modified PDMS (Abstract). Chang teaches this improves re-workability and durability of the resulting adhesive. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add polyether siloxane copolymers to the adhesive of Shimatani or use the adhesive taught by Chaing in Shimatani for the improved durability and workability of the adhesive.
Shimatani does not specifically teach the top coat includes a surface-energy modifying additive. Shimatani teaches the top coat can be paint. (Paragraph 0020).
Polastri teaches adding a surface energy modifying additive of PTFE to paint. (Abstract; Paragraph 0008). Polastri teaches adding PTFE to paint improves the weatherability of the paint. (Paragraph 0097). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add PTFE to paint composition of Shimatani.
Claim 1, 3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimatani in view of Masterbond, Chun et al. (US 2007/0191517 A1), and Polastri.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8, Shimatani teaches a functional film having a surface energy and a cap sheet adjacent to the functional film having a surface energy. (Fig. 2 and 5). Shimatani teaches the cap sheet comprises a cap sheet substrate, base layer, and a cap sheet adhesive layer, where the cap sheet adhesive layer is adjacent to the functional film and defining the surface energy of the cap sheet (Paragraph 0050; Fig 2 and 5, Item 3). Shimatani teaches the functional film comprises a functional film substrate, base material, (Item 1) and a top coat (Item 2) defining the surface energy of the functional film (Abstract; Fig. 2 and 5).
Shimatani teaches adhesive force, peel strength, between top coat and the cap adhesive layer is 2N/20 mm or greater. (Paragraph 0015). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Shimatani does not specifically teach the ratio of surface energy of the cap sheet to the functional film is no greater than 2.6 or about 0.1 to about 2.5.
Masterbond teaches the substrate, Shimatani’s substrate, should have a surface energy greater than surface energy of the adhesive, Shimatani’s cap sheet adhesive layer, in order to ensure proper bond formation. This would create a surface energy ratio of less than 1. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the surface energy ratio to the claimed range to ensure proper bond formation between the cap sheet and the functional film of Shimatani.
Shimatani does not specifically teach a surface energy modifying additive comprising a fluoropolymer or a perfluoroalkyl-containing surfactant.
Chun teaches adding a perfluoroalkyl surfactant to an acrylic PSA (Abstract; Claim 1 of Chun). Chun teaches improves the endurance and improves temperature and humidity resistance of the adhesive. (Paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add perfluoroalkyl surface to the acrylic PSA or Shimatani or use the adhesive of Chun to have an adhesive with better endurance and resistancs.
Shimatani does not specifically teach the top coat includes a surface-energy modifying additive. Shimatani teaches the top coat can be paint. (Paragraph 0020).
Polastri teaches adding a surface energy modifying additive of PTFE to paint. (Abstract; Paragraph 0008). Polastri teaches adding PTFE to paint improves the weatherability of the paint. (Paragraph 0097). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add PTFE to paint composition of Shimatani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781