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 3 is 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, the claim recites the integrated light amount is in mW/cm2. However, the correct unit for integrated light amount is J/cm2 or mJ/cm2. Therefore, the unit mW/cm2 is inconsistent with the definition of integrated light amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. (English translation of JP2004001350).
Regarding claim 1, Kakuno et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a resin molded product (abstract), comprising:
Applying a resin obtaining an UV curable resin and a thermosetting resin on a thermoplastic resin sheet to form a resin layer (abstract, para 5, 7);
Heating the resin layer so that the thermosetting resin is in a cured state so that the resin layer is in a semi-cured condition (para 7),
Molding the thermoplastic resin sheet having the resin layer formed thereon (abstract); and
After (c), irradiating the resin layer with UV so that the UV curable resin in in a cured condition (abstract);
Wherein (b) is performed by the time the molding in (c) is completed.
Kakuno et al. does not teach the step of irradiating the resin layer with UV so that the UV curable resin is in a semi-cured condition. However, Kakuno et al. teaches another embodiment in which a photo-curable resin is used as the resin layer and a semi-cured resin layer is obtained by adjusting the irradiation amount of light to the coating layer to be small (para 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments in Kakuno et al. since they have the same purpose of obtaining a semi-cured resin layer as a whole.
Regarding claim 5, Kakuno et al. discloses wherein (b) and (c) are performed before (d) (abstract, para 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kakuno et al. does not teach wherein (c) is performed after (b). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform (c) after (b) since the selection of any order or preforming process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Kakuno et al. does not teach wherein a reaction force measured by scratching the resin layer suing an Erichsen hardness meter after (c) is 0.3 N or more and 1.0 N or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the hardness of the resin layer since Kakuno et al. teaches that the resin layer forms a hard resin as a protection layer (abstract, table 3).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuno et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto (EP4122706).
Regarding claim 2, Kakuno et al. does not teach wherein an integrated light amount of the UV in (c) is smaller than the integrated light amount of the UV in (e). However, Hashimoto teaches that integrated light amount is a result effective variable of the ultraviolet curable resin (para 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a smaller amount of integrated light amount in step (c) than in step (e) since Kakuno et al. teaches adjusting the irradiation amount of light (para 7).
Regarding claim 3, Kakuno et al. as modified does not teach when the integrated light amount of the UV in (c) is A1 and the integrated light amount of the UV in (e) is A2, the equation (1) is satisfied: A2/100 ≤A1≤A2/10. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of integrated light amount of the UV in steps (c) and (e) since Kakuno et al. teaches adjusting the irradiation amount of light (para 7).
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto teaches the method of changing the integrated light amount of ultraviolet rays is not limited, for example, the integrated light amount may be changed by changing at least one of the intensity of light, the scanning speed, or the number of scans (para 32, 42-43, 51).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742