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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onomichi et al. (JP 2016/210129 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Onomichi is directed to materials for mold release applications (para 0004) and discloses a laminate film comprising a base layer (i.e. substrate layer) and a release layer comprising a resin (A) and a resin (B) (para 0017), and laminate further comprising an ion exchange layer formed on the surface of the release layer, wherein the ion exchange layer comprises an ion exchange resin (paras 0018, 0096).
The resin (A) may comprise copolymerizable units including propylene (para 0036) (i.e. resin (A) may be polypropylene-based resin). The weight ratio of resin (A) to resin (B) is 99.99/0.01 to 50/50 (para 0051) and no other resins are required in the release layer. Therefore, resin (A) may comprise 50-99.99% of the resin component of the release layer. The release layer may be laminated directly to the surface of the base layer, or indirectly via an anchor coat layer (para 0081).
In light of the overlap between the claimed laminate and that disclosed by Onomichi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a laminate that is both disclosed by Onomichi and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Onomichi discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Onomichi further discloses the ion exchange resin may be a fluororesin having a sulfonic acid group in a side chain (para 0099).
Regarding Claim 13, Onomichi discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Onomichi further discloses the ion exchange capacity of the ion exchange resin may be 0.1 to 2.0 meq/g (para 0100) (i.e. an equivalent weight of 500-10,000 g/eq (1000/2 to 1000/0.1)).
Regarding Claim 14, Onomichi discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Onomichi further discloses a peeling strength between the release layer and the ion exchange layer is 0.1 to 20 mN/mm (para 0119) (i.e. a release force of 2.5 to 500 mN/25mm).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinmura et al. (JP 6,967,128 B1 using US 2023/0253593 A1 as translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Shinmura is directed to materials for mold release (para 0013), and discloses a layered film comprising a substrate layer, a first layer containing an acid-modified olefin-based resin, a second layer which is a release layer containing a cyclic olefin-based resin, and an ion-exchange resin-containing layer containing an ion-exchange resin in this order (para 0017).
The cyclic olefin-based resin may comprise a repeating linear olefin unit such as propylene (paras 0030, 0032) (i.e. may be a polypropylene-based resin). A proportion of the cyclic olefin-based resin in the second layer is 80-100 mass% (para 0040).
In light of the overlap between the claimed laminate and that disclosed by Shinmura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a laminate that is both disclosed by Shinmura and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Shinmura discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Shinmura further discloses the ion exchange resin is preferably a fluorine resin containing a sulfonic acid group or salt thereof in a side chain (para 0073).
Regarding Claim 13, Shinmura discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 11 above. Shinmura further discloses the ion exchange capacity of the ion exchange resin is about 0.1 to 2.0 meq/g (para 0074) (i.e. an equivalent weight of 500-10,000 g/eq (1000/2 to 1000/0.1)).
Response to Arguments
In light of Applicant’s amendment filed 06/18/2026, the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of record over Okada are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth above.
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 BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights