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 § 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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung Eun Noh et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2014/0125885, here after 885), further in view of Hisako Ishikawa et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2012/0225274, here after 274).
Claim 9 is rejected. 885 teaches a flexible color filter (touch panel without the lower electrode 122) [fig. 2], consisting of:
a transparent flexible substrate (110) [0044] consisting of a thermoset thiol-click polymer [0044];
a black matrix pattern fabricated on the transparent flexible substrate (131), the claim is to device and therefor the method of producing the black matrix pattern does not read in claim (fabricated via a light sensitive black ink coated on the transparent flexible substrate via spin coating) [0045];
color filter pixels (red, blue, green) disposed between the black matrix pattern and fabricated on the transparent flexible substrate, the claim is to device and therefor the method of producing the black matrix pattern does not read in claim (each of the color filter pixels is formed via spin coating onto the transparent flexible substrate) [fig. 2]; further wherein the transparent flexible substrate is cured after each of the color filter pixels is spun coated on to the transparent film;
wherein the flexible color filter further comprises a patterned transparent electrode layer (121, patterned electrode) no matter of how it deposited on the black matrix pattern and the color filter pixels, wherein the transparent electrode layer comprises any of Indium-Tin-Oxide (ITO) [0049, 003]. 885 does not teach the polymer substrate is a thermoset thiol-click polymer. 274 teaches a transparent flexible substrate (film) for making color filters consisting of thermoset (cured) thiol polymer (multifunctional monomer) [(trimethylolpropane tris (3- mercaptopropionate) [0034,0082-83, 0043-0044, 0056, 0058], and thiol CO monomer (another monomer, diallyl
carbonate) (274 teaches it comprising multifunctional thiol monomers and co-monomers therefore, it considered as Thiol-Click polymer) [0070]. 274 teaches transmittance of 89% (in 550nm, green light) [table 1], although itis not 90%, however A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05. Although 274 does not teach haze value of below 1%, however since the polymer is the same, therefore has the same property. Furthermore, haze value depends on thickness of the film and it is to skill of an ordinary person to reduce the thickness of the film to obtain desirable haze value. claim 9 is related to product and curing condition of the polymer does not read in claim limitation as it does not affect the final product. The rest of the claim limitation is not a part of the final product and related to method claim (wherein a fluid is introduced exclusively at an interface between the transparent flexible substrate and a release layer lowers adhesion between the transparent flexible substrate and the release layer, wherein the lowering of the adhesion between the transparent flexible substrate and the release layer enables delamination of the flexible color filter from a carrier substrate).
Claim 10 is rejected as 274 teaches thermoset thiol-click polymer is cured a monomer mixture, and wherein the monomer mixture comprises of one or more
multifunctional thiol monomers (trimethylolpropane tris(8-mercaptopropionate) and
multifunctional co- monomers (diallyl carbonate) [0056,0070], since 274 does not teach
the wt% of each monomer, it is considered 50 wt% of each (also see example 12).
Claims 11-12 are rejected as 274 teaches the cure polymer has small molecule
additive (benzyl acrylate) [0070]. It is to the skill of ordinary person to substitute for
example 10% of diallyI carbonate [0070] with benzyl acrylate in absence of criticality.
Claims 13-14 are rejected as 274 teaches thiol monomer (which is
multifunctional) comprising trimethylolpropane tris (8-mercaptopropionate) [0056].
Claim 15 is rejected as 274 teaches co-monomer (multifunctional) is diallyl|
carbonate [0070].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 16-18 are allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of
reasons for allowance: Claims are allowed for the same reason indicated in office action mailed on 07/30/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues previous references do not teach new limitation of amended claim 9, however claim 9 has limitation of structure of color filter as Noh teaches it( see claim rejection above).
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718