Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/834,485

DECORATIVE FILM FOR EXTERIORS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Examiner
DUCHENEAUX, FRANK D
Art Unit
1788
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
30%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
307 granted / 704 resolved
-21.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -14% lift
Without
With
+-13.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
757
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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(s) 3 is/are 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 3, it is unclear from the claim limitations if the recited vinylidene fluoride-based and methacrylate-based resins are the same vinylidene fluoride-based and methacrylate-based resins recited in current claim 1, or if the recited vinylidene fluoride-based and methacrylate-based resins are in addition to the vinylidene fluoride-based and methacrylate-based resins recited in current claim 1. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasumi et al. (US 2017/0204297 A1) in view of Abe (JP 2017052818 A). The Examiner notes that citations from the ‘818 reference were taken from a machine translation, which is included with the current action. Regarding claim 1, Hasumi teaches a polyvinylidene fluoride adhesive film comprising, in order: layer (A) containing 50 to 100 mass % of a polyvinylidene fluoride resin and 0 to 50 mass % of a polymethacrylate ester resin; layer (B) containing 50 to 100 mass % polymethacrylate ester resin and 0 to 50 mass % of a polyvinylidene fluoride resin; and acrylic adhesive layer, wherein said layer (A), layer (B) and acrylic adhesive layer have thicknesses of 5 to 100 mm, 5 to 100 mm, and 10 to 100 mm, (para 0007), or a thickness for the entire film of 10 to 200 mm (250 mm or less). The Examiner notes that the polyvinylidene fluoride adhesive film provides surface protection (decorative film) for indoors and outdoors (for exterior) (para 0001). The Examiner also notes that the layer (A)/layer (B) laminate provides the fluororesin-based film layer with layer (A) teaching the first layer containing a vinylidene fluoride-based resin and layer (B) teaching the second layer containing a methacrylate-based resin; and wherein second layer (B) is in contact with the acrylic adhesive layer. Hasumi is silent to the acrylic adhesive layer comprising both of a carboxy group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer and an amino group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer; and 5 to 50 mass% of titanium oxide. However, Hasumi does instruct that the acrylic adhesive layer comprises an acrylic copolymer formed from monomers comprising at least functional group-containing monomer such as, inter alia, acrylic acid (carboxy group) and acrylamide (amino group) (para 0022); and further comprises additives (para 0025). Hasumi also teaches that the invention is designed for use with, inter alia, wall material (para 0008). In addition, Abe teaches an adhesive film for application to rough surfaces such as walls (para 0007) comprising a fluororesin film layer and a PSA base layer containing at least one (meth)acrylic polymer (para 0008, 0037) comprising carboxyl or amino group-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer(s) (para 0039, 0041). Abe also discloses that the PSA comprises a blend of a carboxyl group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer and an amino group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer towards a PSA layer demonstrating high tensile strength, excellent elongation and excellent surface conformability (para 0044-0056). Abe further instructs that the PSA comprises pigments such as, inter alia, titanium dioxide towards high whiteness present at 8 to 150 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the (meth)acrylic polymer (para 0059-0600), which overlaps that presently claimed (colored adhesive layer, 5 to 50 mass%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the titanium oxide pigment to the acrylic adhesive layer of Hasumi, in the presently claimed proportions, towards said acrylic adhesive layer demonstrating a white color, and to further employ a combination of a carboxyl group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer and an amino group-containing (meth)acrylic polymer based on the color aesthetics, tensile strength, elongation and surface conformability required/desired of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention. Regarding claim 2, Hasumi teaches that layer (B) comprises an ultraviolet absorber (para 0007). Regarding claim 3, as noted above, layer (A) (i.e., the first layer) contains 50 to 100 mass % of a polyvinylidene fluoride resin and 0 to 50 mass % of a polymethacrylate ester resin, which overlaps that presently claimed; and layer (B) (i.e., the second layer) contains 50 to 100 mass % polymethacrylate ester resin and 0 to 50 mass % of a polyvinylidene fluoride resin, which overlaps that presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the layer (A) and layer (B) with the presently claimed respective proportions of the polyvinylidene fluoride resin and the polymethacrylate ester resin based on the required properties provided by each resin based on the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention. Regarding claim 4, Hasumi does not teach flame retardants comprising the acrylic adhesive layer. Abe teaches that the disclosed PSA are free of flame retardant (para 0064). Regarding claim 5, while Hasumi does not specify a light transmittance of the layer (A)/layer (B) laminate, Hasumi is conspicuously directed to providing transparency (abstract; 0001). Hasumi also discusses minimizing the adhesive of the acrylic adhesive layer (para 0021) and the polyvinylidene fluoride adhesive film (para 0031). Abe also discusses the inventive decorative adhesive film’s transmittance at 400 to 800 nm of 90 % or more (para 0016). Indeed, it would have been within the knowledge available to the skilled in artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the wavelength-dependent transparency of the polyvinylidene fluoride adhesive film of the cited prior art to that presently claimed (80% or higher at 280 to 780 nm) based on the total light transmittance required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention. Regarding claim 6, Hasumi teaches that the polyvinylidene fluoride adhesive film is employed with vehicles (para 0008). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 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, Alicia A Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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. /FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/5/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590230
ADHESIVE FILM THAT CAN BE WOUND AND STAMPED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577443
ADHESIVE FILM, OPTICAL MEMBER COMPRISING THE SAME, AND OPTICAL DISPLAY APPARATUS COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570878
SELF-STICK INSULATION AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575373
WAFER THINNING TAPE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND WAFER GRINDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565602
HIGH-FREQUENCY DIELECTRIC HEATING ADHESIVE SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
44%
Grant Probability
30%
With Interview (-13.8%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 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