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 § 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, 25-29, and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsunori (CN1703459A) in view of Pham et al (US 2015/0018788 A1) and Kawashima et al (WO2010032570A1). Katsunori and Kawashima are interpreted from respective English machine translations.
With regards to claim 1, Katsunori discloses a polarizer plate comprising a polarizer (i.e., film comprising a first surface layer part, a second surface layer part, and an internal part), the two polarizer protective layers each comprising norbornene resin (i.e., cyclic olefin resin) and styrene-based elastomer (See English Translation of Description of Katsunori: page 4, first four paragraphs; page 18, second-to-last paragraph). It is noted that the present claims and specification describe the formed film as a “single layer,” and as best understood, any single layer (i.e., such as the polarizer of Katsunori) may be arbitrarily subdivided into a first surface layer part, a second surface layer part, and an internal part (i.e., the present specification does not indicate any structurally-distinguishing features which necessarily denote a “first surface layer part,” a “second surface layer part,” or an “internal part”). Therefore, the polarizer of Katsunori may be arbitrarily subdivided into a first surface layer part, a second surface layer part, and an internal part each having thicknesses according to the claimed ranges (i.e., the claimed “parts” may be taken as structurally equivalent to “regions” which do not have specific structures indicating their boundaries). Katsunori teaches that the styrene elastomer is in the form of rods having controlled diameter (i.e., controlled minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Katsunori teaches that the rod diameter affects transparency. In particular, the diameter of the rod is equivalent to the wavelength of light transmitted (i.e., the minor-axis dispersion diameter is a result-effective variable) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Considering that Katsunori teaches manufacturing the overall polarizer plate such that it is transparent due to a particular wavelength of light, one of ordinary skill would particularly envisage selecting the same rod diameter (i.e., minor-axis dispersion diameter) for the styrene elastomer of each of the layers, since such a selection would maximize transparency at a given wavelength of light (i.e., one of ordinary skill is motivated to adjust minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameters of the styrene elastomer in each of the layers (i.e., including the first surface layer part, second surface layer part, and internal part), and in particular, one of ordinary skill is guided towards selecting the same minor-axis dispersion diameter for each of the first surface layer, second surface layer, and internal part (i.e., a value of 100%) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it further obvious to have selected minor-axis dispersion diameters for each the first surface layer part, the internal part, and the second surface layer part as claimed, in order to achieve transparency of light having wavelengths in the presently claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). In addition, since the polarizer contains a styrene-based elastomer, and given that the same styrene-based elastomer is used throughout (i.e., in each of the first surface part, second surface part, and internal part), each of the first surface part, second surface part, and internal part) would have the same dispersion diameter (i.e., 100% of an average value) (See above discussion). Based on the foregoing, since a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameter of the styrene-based elastomer, the claimed minor axis dispersion diameter range of 2000 nm or less is not seen as distinguishing (See above discussion). In addition, Katsunori discloses a thickness of 75 microns, which is within the claimed range 0.1 microns to 2000 microns (See Katsunori: page 20, last sentence continued onto page 21; page 21, second-to-last paragraph).
Although Katsunori is directed to norbornene polymers, Katsunori does not specifically disclose an addition polymer of ethylene and norbornene.
Pham discloses a flexible barrier film made of an ethylene-norbornene copolymer (i.e., addition polymer of ethylene and norbornene) (Pham: abstract para. [0037]-[0038]). Pham is primarily directed to providing improved barrier properties, which the Katsunori reference would appreciate as its film is used as a building material or in an electronic device (both uses which require barrier properties). Pham and Katsunori are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of norbornene films. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the ethylene-norbornene copolymer of Pham for the norbornene polymer of Katsunori, in order to improve the barrier properties of the film of Katsunori, and also improve the extrusion properties of the film of Katsunori (Pham: para. [0038]). In addition, the styrene elastomer is a hydrogenated styrene/butadiene block copolymer (See Katsunori: page 8, second-to-last paragraph).
However, Katsunori and Pham do not appear to a number average molecular weight of 10,000 to 300,000.
Kawashima is directed to a cyclic olefin resin composition including a styrene/butadiene copolymer, or ethylene or norbornene copolymer, with a weight average molecular weight of 1000 to 30,000 and a weight average to number average molecular weight ratio of 1.1 to 10, which implies a number average molecular weight of 1000 to 272,727 (i.e., 10000 / 10 = 1000, 300,000 / 1.1 = 272,727) (Kawashima, hereinafter with reference to the English translation: page 4, “The molecular weight distribution…”; page 9, “Such hydrogenated styrene / butadiene copolymer has a polystyrene-reduced weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 300,000”). Kawashima teaches that this molecular weight range is associated with improved strength (Kawashima: page 9, “Such hydrogenated styrene / butadiene copolymer has a…”). Katsunori, Pham, and Kawashima are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of cyclic olefin resin compositions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected from the molecular weight range of Kawashima for the any of the copolymers Katsunori and Pham in order to provide strength (Kawashima: page 9, “Such hydrogenated styrene / butadiene copolymer has a…”). The range taught by Kawashima overlaps the claimed range of 30,000 to 100,000, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With further regards to claim 1, Katsunori discloses a styrene content of, for example, 32%, 28%, or 40% (See Katsunori: embodiments 1, 3, and 4, for 32%, 28%, and 40%, respectively). This styrene content is essentially the mole percent styrene in the hydrogenated styrene/butadiene copolymer (i.e., the examples of Katsunori teach, respectively, 32 mol%, 28 mol %, and 40 mol% of styrene as a ratio of butadiene to styrene). Since the copolymer comprises only styrene and butadiene, Katsunori discloses, respectively, 68 mol % (i.e., 100 – 32 = 68), 72 mol% (i.e., 100 – 28 = 72) and 60 mol % (i.e., 100 – 40 = 60) butadiene as a ratio of butadiene to styrene. In addition, Katsunori teaches that the composition comprises 5 to 40 parts by weight rubbery polymer (i.e., styrene elastomer) for every 100 parts norbornene resin (i.e., cyclic olefin) (See Katsunori: claim 1). Therefore, the amount of styrene elastomer ranges from 4.76 wt. % to 28.6 wt. % (i.e., 5 parts styrene elastomer / (5 parts styrene elastomer + 100 parts norbornene) = 5/105 = 0.0476 = 4.76 wt. % styrene). This range overlaps the claimed range of not less than 5 wt. % and not greater than 35 wt. %. Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 25, the amount of styrene elastomer ranges from 4.76 wt. % to 28.6 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range of not greater than 10 wt. % (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 26, the amount of styrene elastomer ranges from 4.76 wt. % to 28.6 wt. %, which overlaps the claimed range of not less than 10 wt. % (see above discussion). Instances of overlapping ranges have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 27, Katsunori teaches that the styrene elastomer is in the form of rods having controlled diameter (i.e., controlled minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Katsunori teaches that the rod diameter affects transparency. In particular, the diameter of the rod is equivalent to the wavelength of light transmitted (i.e., the minor-axis dispersion diameter is a result-effective variable) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Considering that Katsunori teaches manufacturing the overall polarizer plate such that it is transparent due to a particular wavelength of light, one of ordinary skill would particularly envisage selecting the same rod diameter (i.e., minor-axis dispersion diameter) for the styrene elastomer of each of the layers, since such a selection would maximize transparency at a given wavelength of light (i.e., one of ordinary skill is motivated to adjust minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameters of the styrene elastomer in each of the layers (i.e., including the first surface layer part, second surface layer part, and internal part), and therefore, a minor-axis dispersion diameter of not greater than 1400 nm is not seen as distinguishing (i.e., would have been obvious) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
With regards to claim 28, Katsunori teaches that the styrene elastomer is in the form of rods having controlled diameter (i.e., controlled minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Katsunori teaches that the rod diameter affects transparency. In particular, the diameter of the rod is equivalent to the wavelength of light transmitted (i.e., the minor-axis dispersion diameter is a result-effective variable) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Considering that Katsunori teaches manufacturing the overall polarizer plate such that it is transparent due to a particular wavelength of light, one of ordinary skill would particularly envisage selecting the same rod diameter (i.e., minor-axis dispersion diameter) for the styrene elastomer of each of the layers, since such a selection would maximize transparency at a given wavelength of light (i.e., one of ordinary skill is motivated to adjust minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameters of the styrene elastomer in each of the layers (i.e., including the first surface layer part, second surface layer part, and internal part), and therefore, a minor-axis dispersion diameter of not less than 1200 nm is not seen as distinguishing (i.e., would have been obvious) = (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
With regards to claim 29, Katsunori teaches that the styrene elastomer is in the form of rods having controlled diameter (i.e., controlled minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Katsunori teaches that the rod diameter affects transparency. In particular, the diameter of the rod is equivalent to the wavelength of light transmitted (i.e., the minor-axis dispersion diameter is a result-effective variable) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Considering that Katsunori teaches manufacturing the overall polarizer plate such that it is transparent due to a particular wavelength of light, one of ordinary skill would particularly envisage selecting the same rod diameter (i.e., minor-axis dispersion diameter) for the styrene elastomer of each of the layers, since such a selection would maximize transparency at a given wavelength of light (i.e., one of ordinary skill is motivated to adjust minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameters of the styrene elastomer in each of the layers (i.e., including the first surface layer part, second surface layer part, and internal part), and therefore, a minor-axis dispersion diameter of from 1200 nm to 1400 nm is not seen as distinguishing (i.e., would have been obvious) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
With regards to claim 33, Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima teach a cyclic olefin resin composition film as applied above (see above discussion). The cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention (see above discussion). It has been held that a composition and its properties are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, since the cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, the cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is expected to have the claimed tear strength of 60 N/mm or more as measured according to JIS K7128 (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 34, Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima teach a cyclic olefin resin composition film as applied above (see above discussion). The cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention (see above discussion). It has been held that a composition and its properties are inseparable, per MPEP 2112. Therefore, since the cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, the cyclic olefin resin composition film of Katsunori, Phan, and Kawashima is expected to have the claimed tear strength of 60 N/mm or more as measured according to JIS K7128 (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 35, Katsunori discloses a polarizer thickness (i.e., film thickness) of 75 microns, which is within the claimed range 1 micron to 1 millimeter (See Katsunori: page 20, last sentence continued onto page 21; page 21, second-to-last paragraph).
With regards to claim 36, Katsunori teaches that the styrene elastomer is in the form of rods having controlled diameter (i.e., controlled minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Katsunori teaches that the rod diameter affects transparency. In particular, the diameter of the rod is equivalent to the wavelength of light transmitted (i.e., the minor-axis dispersion diameter is a result-effective variable) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Considering that Katsunori teaches manufacturing the overall polarizer plate such that it is transparent due to a particular wavelength of light, one of ordinary skill would particularly envisage selecting the same rod diameter (i.e., minor-axis dispersion diameter) for the styrene elastomer of each of the layers, since such a selection would maximize transparency at a given wavelength of light (i.e., one of ordinary skill is motivated to adjust minor-axis dispersion diameter) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the minor-axis dispersion diameters of the styrene elastomer in each of the layers (i.e., including the first surface layer part, second surface layer part, and internal part), and therefore, a minor-axis dispersion diameter of 1000 nm to 2000 nm is not seen as distinguishing (i.e., would have been obvious) (See Katsunori: page 13, second-to-last paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
With regards to claim 37, Katsunori generically teaches a number average molecular weight for its resins (which includes the styrene/butadiene elastomer) of 50,000 to 1,000,000, which overlaps the claimed range of 20,000 to 100,000, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (See Above Discussion). See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 38, Katsunori discloses a styrene content of, for example, 32%, 28%, or 40% (See Katsunori: embodiments 1, 3, and 4, for 32%, 28%, and 40%, respectively). This styrene content is essentially the mole percent styrene in the hydrogenated styrene/butadiene copolymer (i.e., the examples of Katsunori teach, respectively, 32 mol%, 28 mol %, and 40 mol% of styrene as a ratio of butadiene to styrene). It is noted that these values are within the claimed range of 20 to 40 mol %.
With regards to claim 39, since the copolymer of Katsunori comprises only styrene and butadiene, Katsunori discloses, respectively, 68 mol % (i.e., 100 – 32 = 68), 72 mol% (i.e., 100 – 28 = 72) and 60 mol % (i.e., 100 – 40 = 60) butadiene as a ratio of butadiene to styrene, which is within the claimed range of 10 to 90 mol %.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant summarizes present claim 1 as amended, and argues that none of Katsunori, Pham, and Kawashima disclose the claimed molecular weight range of 30,000 to 100,000. Applicant points to Kawashima’s calculation of a molecular weight of 27,272. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as the broader disclosure of Kawashima teaches a separate embodiment including a number-average molecular weight which can be calculated as 1000 to 272,727. This range is selected by Kawashima from the viewpoint of strength. This range still overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the claimed number average molecular weight exhibits unexpected results not present in the structure of Katsunori, Pham, and Kawashima. This argument is not found persuasive as Kawashima acknowledges the same property argued by Applicant as unexpected (i.e., Kawashima teaches selection from an overlapping range for the purpose of providing improved strength). Applicant also has not provided any data supporting the assertions of unexpected results.
On page 9, Applicant argues that Kawashima discloses resin particles, and not a film. This argument is not found persuasive as the resin particles of Kawashima are ultimately used to form a film (i.e., Kawashima forms a suspension of resin particles, which are later processed into a film).
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the claimed minor axis dispersion diameter and thickness ranges distinguish claim 1. Applicant disagrees that these features would have been optimal. Applicant argues that the only reason for optimization is arrived from improper hindsight. These arguments are not found persuasive as Katsunori teaches rod diameter (i.e., minor axis dispersion diameter) as affecting transparency, and further, Katsunori expressly instructs a person of ordinary skill to adjust rod diameter depending on the wavelength of light to be transmitted. In addition, the Examiner has pointed out that the present claims do not recite a specific layer or feature thickness, but rather, the claims recite thickness in terms of “parts” having unspecified boundaries (i.e., it is asserted that the film of the prior art can be subdivided into “regions” or “parts” which meet the present claims).
On pages 10-12, Applicant argues that the present inventors discovered dispersion as affecting toughness and blocking resistance, while Katsunori only teaches optimization for transparency. Applicant broadly states that the specification “describes that significant benefits are provided” such as high tear strength and small increase in haze during storage. Applicant cites to Example 5 of the present specification as possessing the argued properties. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as the existence of superior properties is insufficient to overcome a case of obviousness, unless such properties are found to be unexpected. It is noted that Applicant has not supplied evidence that the benefits amount to unexpected results. Although Applicant cites to Example 5 of the present specification as having superior tear strength, Example 5 includes one specific styrene-based elastomer, and the claims are much broader. The examples of the present specification list specific trade name materials for the block copolymer. It is not clear that Applicant’s alleged unexpected results would hold for any hydrogenated styrene/butadiene block copolymer known in the art. In addition, the Examiner notes Applicant argues that the claimed ranges contribute to the unexpected properties, as can been seen in Example 5, but the other examples (i.e., Examples 1-4 and 6) also have Applicant’s claimed amount of hydrogenated styrene/butadiene block copolymer (i.e., 10 wt. %, which is within the claimed range of not less than 5 wt. % and not greater than 35 wt. %), yet Applicant argues that Example 5 has superior properties compared to these examples. It Is not clear, therefore, how the claimed range of not less than 5 wt. % and not greater than 35 wt. % is responsible for the argued unexpected results, when Applicant’s examples which do not appear to demonstrate the alleged unexpected results fall within this range. Furthermore, Applicant has not established unexpected results across the entirety of the claimed ranges (i.e., Applicant only presents data at 10 wt. % of hydrogenated styrene/butadiene block copolymer, yet the claimed range is much broader at not less than 5 wt. % and not greater than 35 wt. %
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached on (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights