DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/18/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-29 are pending, claims 7, 12 and 16 are cancelled and claims 24-29 are withdrawn.
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 1, 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hamaguchi (US Patent 5102497).
As to claim 1, Hamaguchi discloses a transfer member with a pattern of metallic luster constructed that a release sheet is formed on the whole surface of a release sheet, a metal thin film layer is formed on the release layer, and a patterned adhesive is formed on the metal (abs). As seen in figure 1, transfer member 10 comprises a release sheet 1 (substrate), 2 a release layer (transfer layer), 3 a coloring layer (decorative layer), 4 an anchor layer, 5 a metal thin film layer, 6 an adhesive layer (column 4 lines 20-33). As shown in figure 2. The release layer 2, as well as layers 3-6 are transferred to target substrate 7 (column 4 lines 30-33). The release layer 2 is made of acrylic resin (column 4 lines 50-55). The substrate can be polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene (column 4 lines 33-40). Therefore, since Hamaguchi discloses the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer it will inherently have a loss factor of between .015 and .1 as its easily removed from the substrate layer. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have this loss factor for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claim 3, Hamaguchi discloses that the substrate can be polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene (column 4 lines 33-40).
As to claim 4, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer and it will inherently have a loss factor of between .015 and .1 at a temperature of between 20 and 65 degrees Celsius, as its easily removed from the substrate layer. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have this loss factor for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claims 5, and 6 Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer it will inherently have a storage modulus in the range of 5x106 Pa to 5x107 Pa and loss modulus in the range of 5x105 Pa to 5x104 Pa. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have these properties for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claim 8, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer and it will inherently have a heat resistance temperature of 110 to 180 degrees Celsius as its being used in the same manner. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have these properties for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claims 9 and 10, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer and therefore it will inherently have a dyne level not smaller 35 dyn and a difference between the transfer layer and substrate being 5 dyn. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have these properties for easy removal from the substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 11, 13-15, 17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi (US Patent 5102497).
As to claim 2, Hamaguchi anticipates/renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the thickness of the substrate layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamaguchi and formed the thickness of the substrate layer to be between 2 and 15 microns as one of ordinary skill in the art would know that an increasing the thickness costs more and provides more protection and support for the layer while a thinner layer is cheaper and provides less support. See MPEP 2144. 06 change in size.
As to claim 11, Hamaguchi discloses a transfer member with a pattern of metallic luster constructed that a release sheet is formed on the whole surface of a release sheet, a metal thin film layer is formed on the release layer, and a patterned adhesive is formed on the metal (abs). As seen in figure 1, transfer member 10 comprises a release sheet 1 (substrate), 2 a release layer (transfer layer), 3 a coloring layer (decorative layer), 4 an anchor layer, 5 a metal thin film layer, 6 an adhesive layer (column 4 lines 20-33). As shown in figure 2. The release layer 2, as well as layers 3-6 are transferred to target substrate 7 (column 4 lines 30-33). The release layer 2 is made of acrylic resin (column 4 lines 50-55). The substrate can be polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene (column 4 lines 33-40). Therefore, since Hamaguchi discloses the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer it will inherently have a loss factor of between .015 and .1 as its easily removed from the substrate layer. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have this loss factor for easy removal from the substrate. However is silent to the thickness of the substrate layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamaguchi and formed the thickness of the substrate layer to be between 2 and 15 microns as one of ordinary skill in the art would know that an increasing the thickness costs more and provides more protection and support for the layer while a thinner layer is cheaper and provides less support. See MPEP 2144. 06 change in size.
As to claim 13, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer and it will inherently have a loss factor of between .015 and .1 at a temperature of between 20 and 65 degrees Celsius, as its easily removed from the substrate layer. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have this loss factor for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claims 14 and 15, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer, it will inherently have a storage modulus in the range of 5x106 Pa to 5x107 Pa and loss modulus in the range of 5x105 Pa to 5x104 Pa. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have these properties for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claim 17, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the release layer and therefore it will inherently have a peel strength with the decorative layer of not greater than 5 gf/in. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer and decorative layer to have a peel strength of not greater than 5 gf/in so that these layers are not separated.
As to claim 19, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the substrate as well as for the release layer and it will inherently have a heat resistance temperature of 110 to 180 degrees Celsius as its being used in the same manner. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have these properties for easy removal from the substrate.
As to claim 20, Hamaguchi does not disclose an additional release layer between the substrate layer and release layer.
As to claim 21, in an alternative view, Hamaguchi discloses that an anchor layer 25 is located between substrate 21 and decorative composite layers 27 and 28. The anchor layer provides adhesive properties.
As to claim 22, Hamaguchi discloses that the same material used for the release layer and therefore it will inherently have a peel strength of between 2.5 gf/in and 4 gf/in. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer with this peel strength as it’s used for the same purpose.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi (US Patent 5102497) in view of Johnson et al (US Patent 4818589).
As to claims 18 and 23, Hamaguchi anticipates/renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the release layer being polyurethane.
Johnson discloses a transfer article comprising a clear coat layer 26 to protect the sublayers and release from the carrier layer made of polyurethane (column 7 lines 14-40) such as PET (column 5 lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamaguchi and used polyurethane as the release layer as suggested by Johnson as it would be a suitable alternative as it is functioning in the same manner as being release from a PET carrier layer and protecting colored layers underneath after transfer and Hamaguchi discloses any suitable polymer can be used. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that that Hamaguchi fail to render claim 1 obvious and the features of claim 1 have unexpected results. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the has been no evidence or showing that there are unexpectedly better results. Further the layer of Hamaguchi is peeled off and transferred away from the substrate. The materials are the same and therefore would inherently have a loss factor of between .015 and .1 as it’s easily removed from the substrate layer and transferred to another substrate. In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the release layer to have this loss factor for easy removal from the substrate as the layer is transferred to another substrate.
Applicant’s argue that that Hamaguchi fail to render claim 11 obvious and the features of claim 11 have unexpected results especially the thickness. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the has been no evidence or showing that there are unexpectedly better results. It would be obvious to adjust the thickness without a showing of how this range creates a softness and reaching greater transfer printing effects. See MPEP 2144.06 change in size.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights