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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 and 05/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the hardness values in equation 4 has units of “N/mm2” it is believed the “2” should be superscripted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites HM(L) in equation 4, without setting forth what “HM(L)” is an abbreviation for.
For sake of further examination HM(L) will be viewed as the hardness of the coating layer of the laminate film L.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 further recites that the coating layer is formed of one or more layers and also recites a stacking order where the coating layer is presumably a “clear layer” and a “design layer” it is unclear if claim 2 requires the coating layer to include two layers as recited in the stacking order limitation or one or more layers as recited in the first clause of the claim.
Claim 4 recites Tg, without setting forth what “Tg” is an abbreviation for.
For sake of further examination Tg will be viewed as the glass transition temperature of the coating layer of the laminate film L.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (WO2020/116576) and further in view of Shinbara et al. (US 2019/0184688) and Junghans et al. (US 2019/0308398).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Watanabe discloses a laminated film comprising a protective film, coating layer and a resin substrate the protective film comprising an adhesive layer in contact with the coating layer (thus the protective film and coating layer are adjacent to each other) (0008).
Watanabe does not teach the laminate film further comprising an adhesive layer on the side of the resin substrate opposite the coating layer and adhesive in contact with an adherend (as claimed in claim 7) .
Shinbara, in the analogous field of decorative laminate films (0001), teaches a decorative sheet comprising a back-surface primer layer (2) on the surface of a base material sheet (3) (Fig. 1, 0035). The primer provided to adhere the decorative sheet to an adherend to form a decorative plate (0098).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the resin substrate of Watanabe to include a primer adhesive as taught by Shinbara, which is effective when the decorative sheet is laminated on an adherend to form a decorative plate.
Watanabe further teaches a laminate film L, not including the proactive film, that results from peeling of the protective film from the laminate film at a rate of 5.0 mm/s (0008). Watanabe teaches a surface roughness Rz(a) on the side of the adhesive layer that is not in contact with the coating layer (instant surface roughness Rap) and a surface roughness Rz(b) on the side of the coating layer opposite to the resin substrate (instant surface roughness Rac) and satisfying the relationship 85%< Rz(b)/Rz(a)x100≤110% (0008), overlapping the claimed relationship in equation 1.
Modified Watanabe does not teach the surface free energy ratio as claimed in equation 2. However, Shinbara teaches that surface free energy affects the ease of grime sticking to the surface and the cleanability of the surface (0073).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to optimize the surface free energy including within the ratio as claimed in equation 2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Modified Watanabe does not expressly teach satisfying the gloss of equations 3 and 5. Watanabe however teaches that the surface roughness affects the surface appearance including gloss and their surface roughness relationship aims to suppress low gloss (0065 and 0067). Given Watanabe teaches an overlapping range for the claimed surface roughness ratio, the ratio of 60o gloss as claimed in equations 3 and 5 would be expected from the product of Watanabe (see MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill based on the disclosure of Watanabe would have found it obvious to optimize the gloss relationship, including within the ratio as claimed in equations 3 or 5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lastly, while Watanabe teaches the coating layer having a high hardness under a scratch test (0008), Watanabe does not teach a martens hardness of the coating layer.
Junghans, in the analogous field of laminate protection films (0001) teaches the coating layer having a surface roughness of 2.0 to 3.5 N/mm2 (0021), overlapping the claimed hardness in equation 4.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the hardness of the coating layer of Watanabe to be 2.0 to 3.5 N/mm2, as taught by Junghans, so the coating does not lose abrasion resistance (0027).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Shinbara teaches a film laminate having a stacking order of protective film/clear layer/resin substrate/adhesive layer as discussed above. Watanabe further teaches the laminate film including a decorative layer (0133).
However, Watanabe does not disclose the decorative layer being between the coating layer and resin substrate.
Shinbara teaches the picture pattern layer (4) provided between a transparent resin layer (6) and base material (3) (Fig. 1, 0035).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the decorative layer of Watanabe to be provided between the coating layer and resin substrate as taught by Shinbara, to provide a desired design to the laminate (0043).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe further teaches the laminate film including a decorative layer and which may be provided on the surface of the resin substrate opposite the coating layer (0133). Watanabe in view of Shinbara teaches a film laminate having a stacking order of protective film/clear layer/resin substrate/decorative layer/ adhesive layer as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe does not teach a glass transition temperature of the coating layer in the laminate film L after curing. However, Watanabe teaches a substantially identical coating layer composition (0091-0098) and which is cured (0076) after removal of the protective layer, thus an overlapping range of Tg is expected of the prior art laminate film (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches the film having an elongation of preferably 50 to 350% (0073), overlapping the claimed extensibility of 50 to 300% (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe teaches the coating layer formed of acrylic resin (0091), polycarbonate polyol (0114), fluororesin, and silicone resin (0098).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights