Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/578,399

DECORATIVE FILM, DECORATIVE MOLDED ARTICLE, DECORATIVE DISPLAY COMPONENT, DECORATIVE DISPLAY SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DECORATIVE DISPLAY COMPONENT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 11, 2024
Examiner
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dai Nippon Printing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
720 granted / 1007 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1051
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.2%
+21.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1007 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s response filed on 11/24/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 15 are amended, claims 4 and 5 are canceled and claims 1-3 and 6-22 are pending. Currently, claims 19-22 are withdrawn as non-elected invention. 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. Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyasu (JP 2000141402 A) in view of Harima et al. (US 2021/0198845 A1). Claim 1: Hiroyasu teaches an illuminated decorative sheet 2 comprising a metal thin film layer 6, a light shielding colored layer 3, a translucent colored layer 4, a translucent white layer 8, a transparent or translucent film 7 and an adhesive layer 5 in the order thereof, wherein an anchor layer is provided between the metal thin film layer 6 and the light shielding colored layer 3 (¶124 and ¶81). The illuminated decorative sheet 2 meets the claimed decorative film, the anchor layer meets the claimed first top layer, the light shielding colored layer 3 meets the claimed design layer and the translucent colored layer 4 meets the claimed second top layer. Hiroyasu teaches the anchor layer includes two-component curable urethane resin and acrylic resin (¶81) but does not teach ionizing radiation-curable resin. However, Harima teaches a bonding material comprising a bonding resin including two-component curable urethane resin and curable resin such as an ionizing radiation curable resin [0032]. Harima shows that ionizing radiation curable resin is an equivalent resin known in the decorative material art. Therefore, because these two resins were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute ionizing radiation curable resin for two-component curable urethane resin. Hiroyasu teaches the decorative film 2 comprises the metal thin film layer 6 partially formed on the anchor layer (¶79-¶80). A plurality of parts of the anchor layer not covered by the metal thin film layer 6 meets the claimed surface of the decorative film. Claim 2: Hiroyasu teaches etching the metal thin film layer 6 (¶79-¶80) and the light shielding color layer 3 (¶35) to expose the translucent colored layer 4 (¶57). Claim 3: The transparent or translucent film 7 of Hiroyasu meets the claimed thermoplastic resin layer. Hiroyasu teaches polyphenylene sulfide resin, polycarbonate resin, polypropylene resin, polyethylene resin, polyamide resin, polyester resin, acrylic resin, polyvinyl chloride resin and a polyarylate resin as suitable examples of materials for making the transparent or translucent film 7 (¶65). It is well established that polyphenylene sulfide resin, polycarbonate resin, polypropylene resin, polyethylene resin, polyamide resin, polyester resin, acrylic resin, polyvinyl chloride resin and a polyarylate resin known thermoplastic materials. Claim 6: Hiroyasu teaches acrylic resin as one of suitable examples of materials for making the translucent colored layer 4 (¶51). Claim 9: Hiroyasu does not teach more than one layer of the anchor layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the anchor layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Claims 10 and 11: Hiroyasu teaches etching the metal thin film layer 6 (¶79-¶80). The unetched parts of the metal thin film layer 6 meet the claimed projection layer {instant claim 10} and surface unevenness {instant claim 11}. With respect to the thickness of the metal thin film layer 6, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the metal thin film layer 6, and the motivation would be to control the flexibility and metallic luster of the sheet. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215. Claim 12: The translucent white layer 8 of Hiroyasu (¶76, ¶77 and ¶124) meets the claimed second design layer. Claim 13: Hiroyasu teaches a molded article comprising the illuminated decorative sheet 2 laminated onto a molding resin 9 (¶28 to ¶30). Claim 14: Hiroyasu teaches the molded article is for a vehicle-mounted telephone, a home telephone, or a mobile telephone (¶4). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyasu (JP 2000141402 A) and Harima et al. (US 2021/0198845 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2009/0174121 A1). Hiroyasu and Harima teach the claimed invention as set forth above. Claim 7: Hiroyasu teaches polycarbonate resin as one of suitable examples of materials for making the translucent colored layer 4 (¶51). Hayes teaches a colored layer in a decorative product, wherein the colored layer can be made of a polycarbonate or an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene [0079]. Hayes shows that the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene is an equivalent material known in the decorative product art [0079]. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene for polycarbonate. Hiroyasu does not teach more than one layer of the translucent colored layer 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the translucent colored layer 4, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyasu (JP 2000141402 A) in view of Harima et al. (US 2021/0198845 A1). Claims 15 and 16: Hiroyasu teaches an illuminated decorative sheet 2 comprising a metal thin film layer 6, a light shielding colored layer 3, a translucent colored layer 4, a translucent white layer 8, a transparent or translucent film 7 and an adhesive layer 5 in the order thereof, wherein an anchor layer is provided between the metal thin film layer 6 and the light shielding colored layer 3 (¶124 and ¶81). The illuminated decorative sheet 2 meets the claimed decorative film, the anchor layer meets the claimed first top layer, the light shielding colored layer 3 meets the claimed design layer and the translucent colored layer 4 meets the claimed second top layer. Hiroyasu teaches etching the metal thin film layer 6 (¶79-¶80) and the light shielding color layer 3 (¶35) to expose the translucent colored layer 4 (¶57) {instant claim 16}. Hiroyasu teaches a molded article comprising the illuminated decorative sheet 2 laminated onto a molding resin 9 (¶28 to ¶30). Hiroyasu teaches the molded article is for a vehicle-mounted telephone, a home telephone, or a mobile telephone (¶4). Hiroyasu teaches the anchor layer includes two-component curable urethane resin and acrylic resin (¶81) but does not teach ionizing radiation-curable resin. However, Harima teaches a bonding material comprising a bonding resin including two-component curable urethane resin and curable resin such as an ionizing radiation curable resin [0032]. Harima shows that ionizing radiation curable resin is an equivalent resin known in the decorative material art. Therefore, because these two resins were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute ionizing radiation curable resin for two-component curable urethane resin. Hiroyasu teaches the decorative film 2 comprises the metal thin film layer 6 partially formed on the anchor layer (¶79-¶80). A plurality of parts of the anchor layer not covered by the metal thin film layer 6 meets the claimed surface of the decorative film. Claim 17: In Hiroyasu, the thickness of the molding resin 9 is larger than the thickness of the translucent colored layer 4 (Figs. 1, 9 and 10). Claim 18: The vehicle-mounted telephone, home telephone and mobile telephone of Hiroyasu meet the claimed light source. Response to Arguments Applicant’s argument is based on that one of ordinary skill in art would not place the anchor layer to form a surface of the decorative film because of the presence of the metal thin layer 6 on the anchor layer. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Current claim 10 recites a projection layer having a plurality of projecting part. Hiroyasu teaches the decorative film 2 comprises the metal thin film layer 6 partially formed on the anchor layer (¶79-¶80). The partially formed of the metal thin film layer 6 meets the claimed projection layer having plurality of projecting parts as recited in current claim 10. A plurality of parts of the anchor layer not covered by the metal thin film layer 6 meets the claimed surface of the decorative film as recited in 1 and 15. For the above reason claims 1-3 and 6-18 stand rejected. 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 BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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. BS February 26, 2026 /BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570076
FILM AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565022
Insulative Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558913
RECORDING MATERIAL FOR DYE SUBLIMATION PRINTING HAVING IMPROVED TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533866
INFRARED ADAPTIVE TRANSPARENT CAMOUFLAGE FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12534636
EXTERIOR WINDOW FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1007 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month