Obviousness

The provided patent document for US12220935 does not include a "Prior Art" section listing specific references (e.g., patent numbers, publications) that would typically be used in an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of specific prior art references that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain the motivation for combining them with respect to enumerated prior art.

However, based on the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" and other sections of the patent, the general state of the art at the time of the invention included:

• Decorative foils used for applying all-over varnish layers to target substrates like security documents.
• These foils typically involved transferring an all-over varnish layer from a carrier film to a target substrate, followed by detaching the carrier film.
• The transferred region of the varnish layer could be defined by a partially applied, patterned adhesive layer on the target substrate.

The patent explicitly identifies a problem in this known art: "undefined tears of the all-over varnish layer away from the outer edge of the adhesive layer, which results in a scruffy decoration."

The invention, as described in the abstract and throughout the detailed description, addresses this problem by specifying a decorative foil with a carrier film having a thickness in the range of 3.0 μm to 10.0 μm. The patent asserts that this specific range leads to "an improved covering power and a cleaner stamping of the decoration" due to reduced and more homogeneous cracking and tear-off forces compared to "conventional decorative foils." Figures 9a and 9b, for example, illustrate a comparison between a 5.7 μm carrier film (inventive) and a 12 μm carrier film (described as state of the art), showing a significantly lower average tear-off force and smaller fluctuations for the thinner film.

Without specific prior art references, it is not possible to construct a prima facie case of obviousness by combining elements from disclosed documents. The patent itself argues for non-obviousness by highlighting the "surprisingly" improved results obtained from the specific carrier film thickness, suggesting that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at this specific solution with the expectation of such improved outcomes.The provided patent document for US12220935 does not contain a "Prior Art" section that lists specific references (e.g., other patents, scientific publications) typically used for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of specific prior art references that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain a motivation for combining them from the disclosed art.

However, based on the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" and other sections of the patent, the general state of the art at the time of the invention included:

• Decorative foils, such as laminating, hot stamping, and cold stamping foils, used to apply an all-over varnish layer to target substrates like security documents.
• The process involved transferring the all-over varnish layer from a carrier film to a target substrate, after which the carrier film was detached.
• The transferred region was often defined by a partially applied, patterned adhesive layer on the target substrate, with the ideal outcome being that the decorative foil would tear cleanly at the outer edge of this adhesive layer.

The patent explicitly identifies a problem in this known art: "undefined tears of the all-over varnish layer away from the outer edge of the adhesive layer, which results in a scruffy decoration."

The invention, as described in the abstract and throughout the detailed description, addresses this problem by specifying a decorative foil where the carrier film has a thickness in the range of 3.0 μm to 10.0 μm. The patent states that this specific range "has surprisingly been shown in tests" to lead to "an improved covering power and a cleaner stamping of the decoration" due to reduced cracking force and tear-off force, and significantly decreased fluctuations in these forces, compared to "conventional decorative foils." For instance, the patent contrasts a 5.7 μm carrier film (representative of the invention) with a 12 μm carrier film (described as state of the art in FIG. 9b), demonstrating a lower average tear-off force and much smaller force amplitude fluctuations for the thinner film.

Without specific prior art references to combine, it is not possible to construct a detailed argument for obviousness by combining elements from different documents. The patent itself presents its solution (the specific carrier film thickness range) as overcoming a recognized problem with "unexpected" improved results, implying that such a solution would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.