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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 25 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Satake (WO 2020/031708).
Satake is directed to a release film having a release layer on at least one surface of a base film (paragraph 0009). The surface energy of the release layer is 20 to 35 mJ/m2 (paragraph 0093). The base film is preferably a polyester, such as biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0099). When a release layer is provided on both sides of the base film, the release layers may be made of the same composition (paragraph 0111). The release film may be used a release film in molding methods (paragraph 0115).
The base film reads on the interlayer of claim 5 while one release layer corresponds to the first mold release layer of claim 2 and the other release layer corresponds to the second mold release layer of claim 6.
While Satake does not recite the absolute value of the difference in surface energy between the release films on either side of the base film, they are taught as being formed of the same composition. Since the release layers are the same, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the absolute value of the difference in surface energy between the release films to inherently satisfy the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding the claim 4, since Satake employs polyethylene terephthalate base films with thicknesses that are significantly larger than the thicknesses of the release layer - e.g., the Examples employ base films having a thickness of 50 mm and release layers having thickness of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (paragraph 0137 and Tables 1 and 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the storage elastic modulus of the release film to approach that of the base film. Moreover, since this base film (i.e., biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate) is the same as interlayer used in Example 4 of the instant invention (e.g., paragraphs 0180 on page 91 of the specification), one of ordinary skill
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Satake (WO 2020/031708) as evidenced by TA388 (Determination of the Dimensional Stability of Oriented PET film, TA Instruments).
Satake teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, except for reciting the thermal dimensional change rate at 180 oC measured by thermomechanical analysis. However, biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate is taught as a preferred material for the base film (paragraph 0099).
TA388 is directed to the dimensional change of biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate over temperature as measured by thermomechanical analysis (1st paragraph). The dimensional change for three commercially available oriented polyethylene terephthalate films are illustrated in Figure 1, with values ranging from about 0.5 to about 1.5% at about 150 oC. Extrapolating the curves depicted in Figure 1 of TA388 would lead one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that oriented polyethylene terephthalate inherently exhibits a dimensional change that would be no more than 9% at 180 oC. Since Satake employs polyethylene terephthalate base films with thicknesses that are significantly larger than the thicknesses of the release layer - e.g., the Examples employ base films having a thickness of 50 mm and release layers having thickness of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (paragraph 0137 and Tables 1 and 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the dimensional stability of the release film to approach that of the base film. Therefore, the limitations of claim 3 would be expected to be inherently satisfied.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Satake (WO 2020/031708) as evidenced by MacDonald (Journal of the SID 15/12, pp 1075-1083, 2007).
Satake teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, except for reciting the thermal dimensional change rate at 180 oC measured by thermomechanical analysis. However, biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate is taught as a preferred material for the base film (paragraph 0099).
Figure 10 of MacDonald illustrates the storage modulus E' of polyethylene terephthalate over temperature, with a value of about 3 GPa at 100 oC and about 0.5 GPa at 180 oC (page 1079) resulting in a difference of about 2,500 MPa. Since Satake employs polyethylene terephthalate base films with thicknesses that are significantly larger than the thicknesses of the release layer - e.g., the Examples employ base films having a thickness of 50 mm and release layers having thickness of 0.5 to 1.0 mm (paragraph 0137 and Tables 1 and 3), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the storage elastic modulus of the release film to approach that of the base film. Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 would be expected to be inherently satisfied.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuma (WO 2016/006578) is cited for teaching a release film comprising a polypropylene film having a surface layer on at least one surface wherein the surface layer has a surface free energy of 15 to less than 28 mN/m (abstract). One mN/m is equivalent to one mJ/m2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights