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 4 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 4, it is unclear from the claim limitations, and in light of the specification, what is intended, and not intended, via the recitation of “scaly” in limiting the recited resin-coated metal pigment.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Node (JP 57021473 A) in view of Takase (JP 2002226733 A), and in light of the evidence provided by the DERWENT Abstract of JP 57021473 A and the Aldrich Data Sheet, both of which are provided with the current action. Citations from the ‘473 and ‘733 publications were taken from machine translations, which are included with the current action.
Regarding claim(s) 1-4 and 7, Node teaches a highly weather-resistant, metallic-toned colored pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) sheet (adhesive film having a metallic appearance) (see DERWENT Abstract) comprising a colored PSA on a transparent film (clear film layer) comprising a polyacrylic acid ester-based adhesive (acrylic PSA layer), pigment particles and a metal powder, which said polyacrylic acid ester is a butyl acrylate (claim 5). Node also teaches that the metal powder is aluminum powder (page 7, last three lines), which teaches an aluminum metal pigment (current claim 3).
The Examiner notes that a polybutyl acrylate polymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -54 ℃ (see the Aldrich Data Sheet), which teaches an acrylic adhesive polymer having a Tg of -25 ℃ or less. The Examiner also notes that the disclosed pigment particles of Node teach the presently claimed pigment except the resin coated metal pigment (current claim 7).
Node also teaches that the polyacrylic acid ester-based adhesive, pigment particles and a metal powder are present at a respective weight ratio of 100:1:1 to 100:100:100 (claim 7), which provides an overlap with the presently claimed proportions of the recited resin-coated metal pigment (5 to 100 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the acrylic adhesive polymer, current claim 1) and the presently claimed proportions of the recited pigment except the resin-coated metal pigment (less than 5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the acrylic adhesive polymer, current claim 7).
Indeed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide the pigment particles and the aluminum power in the presently claimed proportions based on the aesthetics and the degree of the pigmentation/metallic appearance (see page 9, lines 5-7 of Node) required/desired of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Node is silent to the aluminum powder (i.e., a metal pigment) being resin-coated (current claim 1) with an acrylic resin coating (current claim 2), and that the aluminum is scaly (current claim 4).
However, Takase teaches aluminum pigments comprising 0.1 to 2.1 parts by weight or resin on the surface of 100 parts by weight of flake-shaped aluminum powder (scaly, current claim 4), which said resin comprises (A) a radically polymerizable unsaturated carboxylic acid and (B) a monomer polymer comprising two or more radically polymerizable double bonds (para 0008, 0014) towards maintaining metallic luster and excellent adhesion (para 0013). The compound (A) comprises (meth)acrylic acid and compound (B) comprises polyfunctional (meth)acrylates (resin-coated metal pigment, acrylic resin coating, current claim 2) (para 0036, 0046-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ the resin-coated aluminum flake-shaped powders of Takase as the metal powders of Node towards the PSA demonstrating excellent metallic luster and adhesion as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 5, Node does not specify the visible light transmittance of the transparent film (i.e., clear film layer).
However, the selection of a transparent film having the presently claimed transmission percentage to visible light (70% or greater) would have been an obvious choice to one skilled in the art based on the degree of clarity required of the PSA sheet’s aesthetic (e.g., the metallic luster of the PSA layer as seen by a viewer) as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 6, Node does not specify the adhesive strength of the PSA sheet.
However, given that Node/Takase teach a PSA layer comprising components identical to that presently claimed, it is reasonable to conclude that the PSA layer of the prior art, and thus the PSA sheet, would demonstrate the presently claimed adhesive strength under the presently claimed conditions,
and/or,
it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to adjust the compositional components of the PSA layer of the cited priori art, and/or their respective proportions, towards the PSA sheet demonstrating the presently claimed adhesive strength based on the adhesive strength, adherend, environmental conditions, etc., required of the prior art’s intended application as in the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK D DUCHENEAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7053. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 PM - 5:00 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, Alicia A Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/FRANK D DUCHENEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 9/25/2026
