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 § 112
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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the triazine-based ultraviolet absorber” containing one or more compounds as claimed. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which does not recite “a triazine-based ultraviolet absorber.” Therefore, the limitations lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
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 (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.
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, 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-153377 to Okumura in view of JP 2018-057276 to Hara.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4-20, Okumura teaches a heat ray reflection film structure which is obtained by alternately laminating at least two kinds of resin layers having different refraction indexes, and consisting of a woven fabric formed by weaving a thin strip tape which is cut from a raw film (Okumura, Abstract). Okumura teaches that the heat-ray reflective film structure has at least 101 resin layers each having an optical thickness of 150 to 400 nm (Id., paragraph 0014). Okumura teaches that a polyester used for a first and protective layer is polyethylene-2,6-naphthalate (Id., paragraph 0064). Okumura teaches that a protective layer can be laminated on both sides of the laminate structure (Id., paragraph 0065).
Okumura teaches that for agricultural films, it is preferable to provide an ultraviolet absorbing layer on at least one surface to prevent deterioration due to ultraviolet rays (Okumura, paragraph 0053). Okumura teaches that the thickness of the ultraviolet absorbing layer is preferably 1 to 5 µm, and that the ultraviolet absorber contained in the ultraviolet absorbing layer includes triazine-based ultraviolet absorbers with a binder resin such as an acrylic binder (Id., paragraphs 0053-0057). Okumura teaches that an exemplary thickness of the protective layer was 5 µm, based on a total multilayer laminate film thickness of 50 µm (Id., paragraph 0067). Okumura teaches that triazine UV absorbers include 2-(2-hydroxy-4-[1-octyloxycarbonylethoxy] phenyl)-4,6-bis (4-phenylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine (Id., paragraph 0056)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat ray reflection film structure of Okumura, wherein the layers are arranged as claimed and contain the claimed polymers and the claimed triazine ultraviolet absorber, and adjusting and varying the thicknesses of the layers and amount of layers, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heat ray reflection film structure which is predictably suitable for agricultural applications, based on the totality of the teachings of Okumura.
Okumura does not appear to teach the claimed mass % of the ultraviolet absorber. However, Hara teaches a similar agricultural covering material having excellent light transmitting, heat insulating, and light resisting properties, including a transparent base material, and an ultraviolet absorption layer containing an ultraviolet absorber and multiple layers (Hara, Abstract, paragraph 0158). Hara teaches that the agricultural covering material has a transparent substrate, wherein the substrate has visible light transmittance of 60% or more and a near-infrared transmittance of 60% or less (Id., paragraph 0007). Hara teaches that the transparent substrate comprises a polyester such as polyethylene-2,6-naphthalate (Id., paragraph 0014). Hara teaches that the absorbing layer contains a polymer having an ultraviolet absorbing partial structure as an ultraviolet absorber and a binder polymer, wherein the ultraviolet absorbing partial structure has a triazine skeleton (Id.). Hara teaches that examples of the binder polymer include acrylic resins (Id., paragraph 0078). Hara teaches that the content of the polymer having an ultraviolet absorbing partial structure in the ultraviolet absorbing layer is preferably 1% by mass to 50% by mass (Id., paragraph 0076). Hara teaches that the agricultural covering material may have a protective layer on the ultraviolet absorbing layer (Id., paragraphs 0127, 0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat ray reflection film structure of Okumura, and adjusting and varying the triazine ultraviolet absorber, such as within the claimed mass %, as taught by Hara, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heat ray reflection film structure having a suitable amount of triazine ultraviolet absorber known in the art as being predictably suitable for use in agricultural applications.
Regarding the claimed secondary reflection band and spectral transmittance values and color difference, Okumura teaches that the average transmittance of visible light having a wavelength of 400 to 750 nm is 80% or more, and an average reflectance of a heat ray (light having a wavelength of 800 to 1100 nm) is 70% or more (Okumura, Abstract). Additionally, the prior art combination comprises a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including the claimed acrylic resin and triazine compound in overlapping amounts as claimed and overlapping thicknesses of the layers, for use in similar applications as claimed. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed properties naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches that the triazine UV absorbers include 2-(2-hydroxy-4-[1-octyloxycarbonylethoxy] phenyl)-4,6-bis (4-phenylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine (Okumura, paragraph 0056). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat ray reflection film structure of the prior art combination, wherein the triazine is as claimed, as taught by Okumura, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heat ray reflection film structure comprising a suitable triazine UV absorber based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Okumura teaches that the thickness of the ultraviolet absorbing layer is preferably 1 to 5 µm. By reciting “preferably,” it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the thickness of the layer is not confined to the recited range. Additionally, Hara teaches a similar UV absorbing layer, wherein the thickness is preferably 20 µm to 1 µm, more preferably 15 µm to 3 µm (Hara, paragraph 0126). Hara teaches that when the thickness is 20 µm or less, the ultraviolet absorbing layer is more excellent in terms of the transmittance of visible light (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat ray reflection film structure of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thickness of the ultraviolet absorbing layer, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Hara, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional heat ray reflection film structure comprising a suitable triazine UV absorber layer having a thickness known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar multilayer films, wherein excellence in transmittance of visible light is desired.
Regarding claims 13-20, the prior art combination teaches that the heat ray reflective film structure is a woven or knitted fabric obtained by weaving thin strip tapes cut from an original film (Okumura, paragraphs 0061, 0071) for use in an agricultural greenhouse (Id., claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that Hara discloses that the ultraviolet light absorber is added to protect the silver nano disk, whereas Okumura is completely silent as to the silver nanodisk, and a person of ordinary skill would have had no reason to turn to the disclosure of Hara to modify the content of the ultraviolet absorber. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Okumura already establishes an ultraviolet absorbing layer comprising triazine-based ultraviolet absorbers with an acrylic binder resin. Therefore, the ultraviolet absorbing layer necessarily comprises an amount of triazine-based ultraviolet absorber. Hara is similarly directed to an agricultural covering material including an ultraviolet absorption layer and a transparent polyethylene-2,6-naphthalate substrate. Hara teaches that the ultraviolet absorbing layer contains a triazine ultraviolet absorber and an acrylic binder resin. Hara establishes that a known amount of triazine ultraviolet absorber in an ultraviolet absorbing layer with an acrylic binder resin, for use in an agricultural covering material which includes a polyethylene-2,6-naphthalate substrate, is preferably 1% by mass to 50% by mass, which overlaps with the claimed range. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look at similar triazine ultraviolet absorbing layers used in similar agricultural covering materials to establish a known and predictably desirable amount of triazine.
Applicants argue that Hara does not disclose or reasonably suggest a resin composition containing a resin and an ultraviolet absorber having a triazine skeleton, as the ultraviolet-absorbing partial structure is incorporated into the molecular structure of the polymer resin. Therefore, Applicants argue that Hara does not disclose or reasonably suggest a resin composition containing a resin and an ultraviolet absorber having a triazine skeleton as two separate components.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires a weather-resistant layer composed of a resin composition containing a resin and an ultraviolet absorber having a triazine skeleton. The claim does not appear to specifically require separate components. Hara teaches that the ultraviolet absorbing layer may contain a polymer A having an ultraviolet absorbing partial structure and may further contain a binder polymer B (Hara, paragraph 0051). Such a structure establishes a triazine skeleton and a resin as claimed. Note that Applicants’ specification at paragraphs 0068-0071 establishes that either interpretation argued by Applicants as being within and outside the scope of the claimed invention is disclosed as being suitable for the claimed invention.
Applicants argues that the prior art fails to provide any teaching or guidance regarding the amount of ultraviolet absorber necessary to achieve the claimed color difference. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar ultraviolet absorbing layer as claimed, including the claimed acrylic resin and triazine compound in overlapping amounts as claimed. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the invention of the prior art would similarly comprise the claimed properties.
Regarding newly added claim 12, Examiner notes that Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0080 recites that the thickness of the weather-resistant layer is, for example, in the range of 3 µm to 15 µm.
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights