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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi (JP 2012-011735 A) in view of Huang et al. (US 2014/0335334 A1) and Matsumoto et al. (US 2014/0335310 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Furuichi teaches a surface protection film (Title) comprising a backing (back face) layer, an intermediate layer, and an adhesive layer (Paragraph 0020. Furuichi teaches the adhesive layer can comprise a polyethylene-based resin (Paragraph 0022), the intermediate layer can comprise a polyethylene-based resin (Paragraph 0029), and the back face layer can comprise a polyethylene-based resin. (Paragraph 0037).
Furuichi teaches the surface of the back face layer has a roughness Ra of 0.2 to 0.5 microns (Paragraph 0044) and roughness Rz of 2 to 5 microns. (Paragraph 0044). Furuichi teaches the surface of the adhesive layer has a rough Ra of 0.2 micron or less and a roughness Rz of 2 micron or less. (Paragraph 0046). 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).
Furuichi teaches the intermediate layer can comprise high-pressure low-density polyethylene. (Paragraph 0029). Furuichi does not the intermediate is a blend of LDPE and HDPE.
Huang teaches a protective film comprising three layers of a backing layer, intermediate layer and adhesive layer, where the intermediate layer is a blend of HDPE and LDPE. (Abstract). Huang teaches this blend of HDPE and LDPE as a middle layer prevents the formation of burrs and allows for machine cutability. (Paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to blend HDPE with the LDPE of Furuichi of the intermediate as taught by Huang in order to reduce formation of burrs and allows for good machine cutability.
Furuichi does not teach the surface of the back layer as periodic protrusion height of 9 microns or less.
Matsumoto teaches a surface protection film (Title) having a backing layer and an adhesive layer. (Claim 1 of Matsumoto), where the backing layer surface should not have any protrusions having a height of 5 microns or greater. (Claim 16-17 of Matsumoto; Paragraph 0063). 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). Matsumoto teaches this ensures no dents will form in the film, when the film is rolled up for storage. (Paragraph 0063). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the periodic height in Furuichi is less than the claimed range, as taught by Matsumoto, to ensure no dents are formed when the film is stored.
Furuichi does not specifically teach the maximum fisheye height of 1.5 microns or less.
Matsumoto teaches removing all fish eyes on the film’s surfaces, thereby having a fisheye height of 0 microns or approaching 0 microns. (Paragraph 0004). Matsumoto teaches removing all fish eyes ensures no smudge and scratches will form on the adherend when the film is applied. (Paragraph 0004, 0065). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to remove all fisheyes or to get the maximum fisheye height as close to zero in Furuichi, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to reduce smudges and scratches to an adherend when applying the surface protection film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues Matsumoto does not teach a maximum height range for fisheyes. This argument is found unpersuasive as Matsumoto teaches removing all fisheyes or reducing fisheyes height to 0. Thus, the maximum height taught by Matsumoto for fisheyes would be 0 or very close to 0. This would overlap claimed range.
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
Prosecution Insights