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 Objections
Claim 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first instance of “an FI value” in each claim should be “a flip-flop index value (FI value)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2019-064027).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘027 filed by Applicant on 4/28/2026.
Regarding claim 1:
Hashimoto discloses a transfer-type three-dimensional molded film [abstract; 0001; 0015]. The film is useful with exterior materials [0161]. The present claim requires “A transfer sheet for producing an exterior member including a metal member”. The exterior member comprising a metal member is considered to be an intended use of the transfer sheet, and so a metal member is not required to meet the claimed invention. (For example, see the method of claim 15 which combines the transfer sheet with a separate metal member to produce an exterior member.) See MPEP 2111.02.
The film comprises a peelable substrate 3 (releasing film), optionally further including a release layer, and a transfer layer 10 [0015-0018; Fig. 1]. The transfer layer 10 comprises a first protective layer 1, a second protective layer 2, and a decorative (pattern) layer 5 [0015-0017; 0129; Fig. 1]. The two protective layers comprise weather resistant agents [0054; 0066; 0081; 0104].
Hashimoto is silent with regard to a low covered area (LCA) having a hiding power ratio of 50% or less, wherein the LCA has a UV light transmittance of 1% or less and a visible light transmittance of 40% or more as presently claimed. The reference teaches, however, that the decorative layer comprises “a pattern layer and/or a concealing layer” (i.e., the pattern layer is distinct from a solid color layer, which is optional), wherein the pattern layer can display any desired pattern or character [0129-0130]. The binders used to make the decorative layer are transparent, except for the use of pigments and inks [0131-0133; 0139]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of such pigments and inks would be used to change the visual characteristics of the layer, including the hiding power ratio (i.e., higher amounts of pigments would increase the hiding power of the layer). Hashimoto further teaches the first and second protective layers comprise UV absorbers, such that the layers provide a UV shielding function [0067; 0080; 0105; 0115].
One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to provide any desired decorative feature imparted by pigments and inks, including degree of color or opacity, to provide a decorative layer having a character or other design, and further provide UV shielding to the film to protect the film and any underlying substrate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of pigments and/or inks, including those providing at least an area with a hiding power ratio and visible light transmittance as claimed, to provide the decorative effects desired for a given end use. Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of UV absorber and/or the thickness of the protective layers to provide a desired level of UV absorption, including providing a UV transmittance within the claimed range, to provide protection to the film and any underlying substrate.
Regarding claim 2:
Hashimoto teaches the first protective layer has a thickness of 1-10 µm [0072]; the thickness of the second protective layer 2 is 1-10 µm [0106]; the thickness of the decorative layer is 1-40 µm [0137]. 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).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the layers of Hashimoto’s transfer layer, including over values within the presently claimed range, to provide the desired dimensions and particular properties (mechanical, UV transmittance, etc.) desired for a given end use.
Regarding claims 3 and 5:
Hashimoto teaches the first protective layer comprises an ionizing radiation-curable resin composition comprising a urethane (meth)acrylate, which can be cured by electron beam [0055-0057].
Regarding claim 4 and 6:
Hashimoto teaches the second protective layer comprises a polycarbonate-based urethane acrylate, which is further cured with an isocyanate compound (i.e., a thermosetting resin) [0083-0084; 0101].
Regarding claims 7-10:
Hashimoto teaches the use of triazine-based UV absorbers, among others [0068-0069; 0105].
Regarding claim 13:
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, the exterior member comprising the metal member is considered to be an intended use of the claimed transfer sheet, and so the presence of the metal member is not required. Insofar as the claim establishes a property of the transfer sheet, the examiner submits a transfer sheet suggested by Hashimoto that otherwise meets the presently claimed structural and composition requirements would meet the implied property requirements because it is otherwise the same as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed above, the presence of the metal member is not required.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2019-064027) in view of Muranaka et al. (WO 2016/208286).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of WO ‘286 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 11-12:
Hashimoto discloses a transfer film and an exterior member comprising the same as described above. The reference teaches the peelable layer 3 “may” have an uneven shape if an uneven shape in the first protection layer is desired, but is not required [0024].
Hashimoto is otherwise silent with regard to the 60° gloss value and average surface roughness (Sa) of the peelable layer.
A smooth releasing layer was known in the art to have utility. For example, Muranaka discloses a mold release polyester film for use in a transfer sheet that enables smooth separation between the layers (abstract; p2-3). The film has a releasing layer having a 60° gloss of 155% and a maximum height (SRt) of 1700 nm (1.7 µm) to provide good detail of the printed layer of the transfer sheet and prevent blocking (p3-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the surface roughness of the film to be very low, including over values resulting in Sa within the claimed range, and further vary the glossiness, including over values falling within the claimed range, to provide the improvements of greater preserved detail of the printed layer and preventing blocking as known in the art.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2019-064027) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2014/0349096).
Regarding claims 15-16:
Hashimoto discloses a transfer film and an exterior member comprising the same as described above. The member is formed by preparing the transfer film and laminating it to a molded resin layer 8 via an adhesive layer 7 so that decorative layer 5 faces the molded resin layer 8 [0143-0146; 0152; Figs. 2-4] The peelable layer 3 is subsequently removed [0160; Fig. 4].
Although Hashimoto discloses the use of metal film in the transfer film, which indicates metallic design features are useful with the disclosed invention [0138], the reference is silent with regard to a metal member attached to the transfer film via an adhesive.
Metal members were known in the art to have utility. For example, Miyazaki teaches it was known to attach a decorative sheet comprising a colored ink (pattern) layer and a surface protecting layer to a metal plate via an adhesive layer to provide the desired decorative features [abstract; 0001; 0040-0041; 0097-0098]. The decorative metal plate is useful for exterior materials [0100].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a metal plate in place of the molded resin layer taught by Hashimoto to provide the desired design and mechanical properties for a given end use.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2019-064027) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2014/0349096) as applied to claims 15-16 above, and further in view of Tomiyama et al. (JP H05-309996).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘996 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 17:
Hashimoto in view of Miyazaki suggests an exterior member comprising the combined transfer film and a metal member as explained in the rejections above.
The references are silent with regard to the flip-flop index (FI value) of the metal member and the overall exterior member.
The decorative effects of flip-flop properties were known in the art. For example, Tomiyama discloses in its background that a high flip-flop property is desirable to provide a glittering metallic tone and optionally provide a stereoscopic effect to an automotive body (p2). The reference teaches high flip-flop properties can be provided to a transfer film that is adhered to such a body (abstract; p2-3).
Although Tomiyama is silent with regard to specific FI values, the reference suggests high flip-flop properties are desirable to provide the decorative effects. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a metal member having high flip-flop properties, including those having an FI value within the claimed range, and further ensure the overall exterior member has high flip-flop properties, including those having an FI value within the claimed range over at least area thereof, to provide the decorative effects desired for a given end use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights