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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/18/2024; 2/19/2026; 7/9/2026; and 8/21/2026 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibiya et al (US 6,136,420) in view of WO2018/123694 (herein referred to as Nitto).
Hibiya teaches a film comprising a laminated film in which a first coating layer containing a polyester resin containing an inorganic pigment (abstract; claim 1), a cavity-containing layer containing a cavity inside the cavity-containing layer (abstract; claim 1) , and a second coating layer containing a polyester resin containing an inorganic pigment are stacked in this order (abstract; claim 1). The cavity containing layer preferably comprises a composition containing a polyester resin (claim 1), a polyolefin resin (claim 3), and a silicone resin (col 6, lines 28+), and has an apparent density of 0.80 g/cm³ or more and 1.20 g/cm³ or less (claim 1).
Hibiya does not teach the film should further comprise a silicone release layer C on at least one surface of the laminated film. However, Nitto teaches that release layers may be applied to polyester-based substrates to provide releasable sheets for use with pressure sensitive adhesive (see all). Suitable release layer compositions include dimethylsiloxane. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply a dimethylsiloxane release coating to the polyester based film disclosed in Hibiya. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the film useful as a release liner for pressure sensitive adhesives. With regards to claim 3, said coating is understood to comprise 100% by mass with respect to a total mass of the release layer C since Nitto is silent to other components being present in the release layer.
With regards to claim 4, Hibiya taches the silicone should comprise an organosiloxane backbone (claim 6, lines 28+), but does not teach the silicone resin of the cavity-containing layer A includes a silicone resin recycled from the release layer C. However, dimethylsiloxane-based surfactants are known in the art. Furthermore, Hibiya teaches the costs and environmental benefits of reclaiming material from one layer and utilizing said material in another layer (col 6, lines 50+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to recycle the silicone used in the release layer and use it as the silicone resin of the cavity-containing layer A. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce costs and the impact on the environment.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, Hibiya teaches the content of organosiloxane in the cavity-containing layer A is 0.001% by mass or more and 1.000% by mass or less with respect to layer (col 6, lines 29+). Said teaching is herein understood to be sufficiently specific to read on the claimed ranges of claims 5 and 6. Alternatively, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of surfactant added to the core layer composition in order to maintain the quality of the film but see the effects of said surfactant (col 2, lines 28+).
With regards to claim 7, Hibiya teaches the inorganic pigment in the first coating layer B1 and the second coating layer B2 is titanium oxide (col 7, lines 42+)
With regards to claim 8, Hibiya teaches the ratio of the thickness of the first coating layer B1 to the thickness of the first coating layer B1 should meet the ratio of claim 1, which is understood to be sufficiently specific to read on the claimed ratio of “6% or more and 40% or less.”
With regards to claim 9, Nitto teaches the coating functions as a release film but does not teach the claimed peel force. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the normal-state peeling force on a surface of the release layer C; the motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the desired release property from the material to which it is being peeled.
With regards to claim 11, said limitation requiring the composition being obtained
by material recycling of the release film according to claim 1 is understood to be a method limitation which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art of record. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the composition of claim 1 as Hibiya teaches such reclamation of material has coast and environmental benefits.
With regards to claim 12, Hibiya does not teach the claimed method of producing a resin composition containing an inorganic pigment, a polyester resin, a polyolefin resin, and a silicone resin by material recycling of the release film according to claim 1. However, Hibiya teaches the costs and environmental benefits of reclaiming material from one layer and utilizing said material in another layer (col 6, lines 50+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to recycle the release film according to claim 1. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce costs and the impact on the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights