Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,382

Decorative Film For A Vehicle Interior and Anti-Scatter Film

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
WEYDEMEYER, ETHAN
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allow Rate
158 granted / 364 resolved
-21.6% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 364 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 . 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 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al (JP2009282471A) in view of Yoshikata et al (US2006/0166023A1). Otomo is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the application file. With regards to claim 1, Otomo discloses a graphics structure for the interior of a vehicle (i.e., decorative film for a vehicle interior), comprising a transparent film formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and an acrylic white pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (i.e., a colored adhesive layer), the acrylic white pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising an amino group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer, a carboxy group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer, and white pigment (i.e., a colorant) (Otomo - Translation: abstract; page 2, “The graphics structure of the invention can provide an image…”; page 4, “As the transparent film, for example…”). The graphics structure of Otomo is further disclosed as having a total calorific value for 20 minutes after the start of heating measured in accordance with ISO 5660-1 cone calorie meter heat resistance test of 8 MJ/m2 or less (Otomo: page 5, “In this aspect, it is preferable that…”). Otomo does not appear to disclose its polyethylene terephthalate film layer as biaxially stretched. Yoshikata is directed to a protective sheet comprising a decorating agent and a biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film (i.e., a decorative sheet comprising a biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film) (Yoshitaka: para. [0162], [0246], and [0256]). As best understood, Yoshikata uses biaxial stretching to aid in incorporation of ultraviolet absorbers and photostabilizers, and to allow for the formation of a heat-resistant film (Yoshikata: para. [0165]). Further, it is clear from Yoshikata that biaxial stretching is a well-known post-processing method within the art (Yoshikata: para. [0165]). Otomo and Yoshikata are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of decorative materials comprising polyethylene terephthalate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have biaxially stretched the polyethylene terephthalate of Otomo, since biaxially stretching is known in the art, and since such a process results in improved incorporation of additives and heat resistance (see above discussion). Regarding the claimed pencil hardness, tensile strength, and elongation properties, it is noted that Otomo and Yoshikata teach a product which is substantially identical in composition to that of the claimed invention (see above discussion). In further support, the adhesive composition of Otomo is found to select a carboxyl group-containing polymer comprising butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, acrylonitrile, and acrylic acid at a 58:36:2:4 mass ratio and an amino group-containing polymer comprising methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, and dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate at a 60:34:6 mass ratio – these materials are identical to the combination of (meth) acrylic polymer 1 and tacky polymer 1 disclosed in Applicant’s specification (i.e., the polymers of Otomo are identical to that of the present specification) (Otomo: page 5, “Preparation of carboxyl group-containing monomer” and “Preparation of amino group-containing monomer”). It has been held that a composition’s properties are inseparable from its properties, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, the product of Otomo and Yoshikata is expected to possess the claimed pencil hardness, tensile strength, and elongation properties (see above discussion). With regards to claim 2, the biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film of Otomo Yoshikata includes an ultraviolet absorber in order to enhance ultraviolet resistance (see above discussion). With regards to claim 3, Otomo and Yoshikata do not mention an inclusion of a flame retardant (i.e., the film is substantially free of a flame retardant). With regards to claim 4, the decorative film consists of the biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film layer and the colored adhesive layer (see above discussion). With regards to claim 5, Otomo and Yoshikata teach a film which is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, and therefore, the film of Otomo is and Yoshikata is expected to exhibit the claimed total light transmittance (see above discussion). With regards to claim 6, the film of Otomo and Yoshikata has a thickness of 130 microns or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 270 microns or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Otomo: claim 11). With regards to claim 7, Otomo discloses a graphics structure for the interior of a vehicle (i.e., the film is an anti-scatter film, as it is capable of transmitting an image through a transparent layer), comprising a transparent film formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and an acrylic white pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (i.e., a colored adhesive layer), the acrylic white pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprising an amino group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer, a carboxy group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer, and white pigment (i.e., a colorant) (Otomo - Translation: abstract; page 2, “The graphics structure of the invention can provide an image…”; page 4, “As the transparent film, for example…”). The graphics structure of Otomo is further disclosed as having a total calorific value for 20 minutes after the start of heating measured in accordance with ISO 5660-1 cone calorie meter heat resistance test of 8 MJ/m2 or less (Otomo: page 5, “In this aspect, it is preferable that…”). Otomo does not appear to disclose its polyethylene terephthalate film layer as biaxially stretched. Yoshikata is directed to a protective sheet comprising a decorating agent and a biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film (i.e., a decorative sheet comprising a biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film) (Yoshitaka: para. [0162], [0246], and [0256]). As best understood, Yoshikata uses biaxial stretching to aid in incorporation of ultraviolet absorbers and photostabilizers, and to allow for the formation of a heat-resistant film (Yoshikata: para. [0165]). Further, it is clear from Yoshikata that biaxial stretching is a well-known post-processing method within the art (Yoshikata: para. [0165]). Otomo and Yoshikata are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of decorative materials comprising polyethylene terephthalate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have biaxially stretched the polyethylene terephthalate of Otomo, since biaxially stretching is known in the art, and since such a process results in improved incorporation of additives and heat resistance (see above discussion). Regarding the claimed pencil hardness, tensile strength, and elongation properties, it is noted that Otomo and Yoshikata teach a product which is substantially identical in composition to that of the claimed invention (see above discussion). In further support, the adhesive composition of Otomo is found to select a carboxyl group-containing polymer comprising butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, acrylonitrile, and acrylic acid at a 58:36:2:4 mass ratio and an amino group-containing polymer comprising methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, and dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate at a 60:34:6 mass ratio – these materials are identical to the combination of (meth) acrylic polymer 1 and tacky polymer 1 disclosed in Applicant’s specification (i.e., the polymers of Otomo are identical to that of the present specification) (Otomo: page 5, “Preparation of carboxyl group-containing monomer” and “Preparation of amino group-containing monomer”). It has been held that a composition’s properties are inseparable from its properties, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, the product of Otomo and Yoshikata is expected to possess the claimed pencil hardness, tensile strength, and elongation properties (see above discussion). With regards to claim 8, the biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film of Otomo Yoshikata includes an ultraviolet absorber in order to enhance ultraviolet resistance (see above discussion). With regards to claim 9, Otomo and Yoshikata do not mention an inclusion of a flame retardant (i.e., the film is substantially free of a flame retardant). With regards to claim 10, the decorative film consists of the biaxially stretched polyethylene terephthalate film layer and the colored adhesive layer (see above discussion). With regards to claim 11, Otomo and Yoshikata teach a film which is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, and therefore, the film of Otomo is and Yoshikata is expected to exhibit the claimed total light transmittance (see above discussion). With regards to claim 12, the film of Otomo and Yoshikata has a thickness of 130 microns or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 270 microns or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 (Otomo: claim 11). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00. 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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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. /E.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595980
COMPOSITE MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595344
LIQUID CRYSTAL POLYMER COMPOSITE, LIQUID CRYSTAL POLYMER COMPOSITE FILM, AND METAL-CLAD LAMINATE INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584029
AQUEOUS COATING COMPOSITION FOR FORMING THERMAL INSULATION COATING FOR WALLS AND REFLECTIVE THERMAL INSULATION COATING SYSTEM FOR WALLS CONTAINING THE THERMAL INSULATION COATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559950
Dimensionally Stable Floor Panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12540440
PAPER OR PAPERBOARD COATED WITH A FOAM COATING LAYER COMPRISING NANOCELLULOSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+45.1%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 364 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