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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the multilayered film, the piezoelectric film, the main component, the protective film, the antistatic layer, the base layer, the metal oxide surface as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, -the multilayered film, the piezoelectric film, the main component, the protective film, the antistatic layer, the base layer, the metal oxide surface as disclosed in claims 1, 8; and - the winding process (e.g., via steps) as disclosed in claim 7; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the present disclosure is missing figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 – 4, 6 – 8 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.
In claim 1, the statement “as a main component” is indefinite. It is not clear what would make polyvinylidene fluoride a main component or how much of such fluoride would make it a “main” component since the composition of any of the materials is not defined in the claim.
Moreover, the statement “being layered in this order” is vague. It is not clear where the base layer would be placed and what would be the “this order”.
In claims 2, 4, 6, the claims seem to define the subject matter in terms of result to be achieved (measurement methods). However, such claims are related to an apparatus claim.
In claim 7, the statement “adhering the piezoelectric film” is indefinite. It is not clear to what component the piezoelectric film is being adhered.
the statement “as a main component” is indefinite. It is not clear what would make polyvinylidene fluoride a main component or how much of such fluoride would make it a “main” component since the composition of any of the materials is not defined in the claim.
Moreover, the statement “being layered in this order” is vague. It is not clear where the base layer would be placed and what would be the “this order”.
In claim 8, the method for producing is dependent on a film (apparatus) claim.
Moreover, the statement “the method for producing a multilayered film according to claim 6” is indefinite. Claim 6 does not disclose any method for producing a film at all. Claim 6 is a dependent, apparatus claim that discloses potential value range.
In claim 8, a metal oxide layer is attached to the multilayered film. It is not clear to which component (piezoelectric, base, etc.), the oxide layer is being attached.
The statement “releasing a protective film” is indefinite. It is not clear how or where the protective film is in relation to all of the layers as disclosed in claim 1 and HOW the protective film would be released.
Claim 1 discloses a protective film and claim 8 discloses a protective film. Are the claims referring to the same protective film or different protective films?
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemura (JP 2015-110312) in view of Hoshino (JP 2017-146492).
Kanemura discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A multilayered film comprising: a piezoelectric film containing polyvinylidene fluoride as a main component (see abstract; description of embodiments in English machine translation); and
a protective film including a base layer material layer (see examples regarding to the PET, PEN, or PP layer in the description of embodiments), the piezoelectric film and the protective film being bonded and the piezoelectric film, the base material layer and the antistatic (protective layer) layer being layered in this order.
The problem to be solve appears to use a protective layer that has an antistatic layer. Such usage of an antistatic layer is well-known in the art.
For example, Hoshino discloses a piezoelectric device having a base layer having a base material 22 and an antistatic layer 22 (see Figs. 1, 2).
Moreover, Hoshino also teaches that the piezoelectric film, the base material layer, and the antistatic layer being layered in this order (see Figs. 1, 2).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the piezoelectric film has a thickness of 5 pm or greater and 200 pm or less (see Kanemura, description of embodiments; Hoshino, description of embodiments).
Claim 4, antistatic layer has a surface specific resistance of 1014Q/sq or less (Hoshino, description of embodiments).
Claim 7, A method for producing a multilayered film comprising: polarizing an extruded film before winding to obtain a piezoelectric film (manufacturing a laminate in a first process; no prior winding; see Kanemura), the extruded film containing polyvinylidene fluoride; adhering the piezoelectric film before winding (performing heat treatment to obtain a laminate; no prior winding); and winding the multilayered film (performing a roll-to roll method; see Kanemura, Process C).
The problem to be solve appears to use a protective film including an antistatic layer. Such usage of an antistatic layer is well-known in the art.
For example, Hoshino discloses a piezoelectric device having a base layer having a base material 22 and an antistatic layer 22 (see Figs. 1, 2).
Moreover, Hoshino also teaches that the piezoelectric film, the base material layer, and the antistatic layer being layered in this order (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 8, A method for producing a transparent electrical conducting film comprising: attaching a metal oxide on a surface of a multilayered film (see Hoshino, description of embodiments) produced by using the method for producing a multilayered film; and releasing a protective film (since the protective film is removed; see Hoshino, description of embodiments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the film/method as disclose by Kanemura and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Hoshino for the purpose of improving the handling properties of a film and reducing and mitigate static charges.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemura and Hoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kou (US 2017/0033276).
The combined film/method discloses all of the elements above. The problem to be solve appears to use a constant in the invention.
In that regard, Kou teaches regarding,
Claim 2, the piezoelectric film has a piezoelectric constant d33 of 5 pC/N or greater and 40 pC/N or less (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined film/method as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Kou for the purpose of reducing noised caused by temperature changes.
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemura and Hoshino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawakazaki (JP 2013-237788).
The Prior Art discloses, regarding,
Claim 8, A method for producing a transparent electrical conducting film comprising: attaching a metal oxide on a surface of a multilayered film (see Hoshino, description of embodiments) produced by using the method for producing a multilayered film; and releasing a protective film (since the protective film is removed; see Hoshino, description of embodiments; Kanemura, description of embodiments).
The combined film/method discloses all of the elements above. The problem to be solve appears to use a specific antistatic property in the invention.
In that regard, Sawazaki teaches regarding,
Claim 6, a surface potential of the film when the multilayered film in a rolled state is pulled out at 50 cm/s is -3 kV or greater and 3 kV or less (see Table 1, Example 1 in description of embodiments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined film/method as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Sawazaki for the purpose of reducing unwanted peeling of layers.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al (US 2019/0088850) in view of Sasaki (WO 2018/088171).
Tanimoto et al discloses,
Claim 1, A multilayered film comprising:
a piezoelectric film containing polyvinylidene fluoride [0071] as a main component; and
a protective film including an antistatic layer [0240, 0263] and a base layer material layer (see Fig. 2), the piezoelectric film and the protective film being bonded and the piezoelectric film, the base material layer and the antistatic layer being layered in this order (see Figs. 1, 2).
Sasaki is being cited for explicitly showing the order of placing the piezoelectric film, the base material layer and the antistatic layer being layered in such order (see Figs. 6, 7).
Tanimoto et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the piezoelectric film has a piezoelectric constant d33 of 5 pC/N or greater and 40 pC/N or less [0004, 0020, 0211].
Claim 3, the piezoelectric film has a thickness of 5 pm or greater and 200 pm or less [0194, 0203; 0216).
Claim 7, A method for producing a multilayered film comprising: polarizing an extruded film before winding to obtain a piezoelectric film [0186, 0003], the extruded film containing polyvinylidene fluoride as a main component;
adhering the piezoelectric film before winding and a protective film including a base material layer and an antistatic layer, the piezoelectric film, the base material layer and the antistatic layer being layered in this order [0129; see Fig. 2] to obtain a multilayered film; and winding the multilayered film [0265, 0267, 0306].
Sasaki is being cited for explicitly showing the order of placing the piezoelectric film, the base material layer and the antistatic layer being layered in such order (see Figs. 6, 7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the film/method as disclose by Tanimoto et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Sasaki for the purpose of suppressing peeling electrostatic charges.
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawazaki (JP 2013-237788).
The Prior Art discloses all of the elements above. However, the Prior Art does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Sawazaki discloses, regarding,
Claim 8, A method for producing a transparent electrical conducting film comprising: attaching a metal oxide on a surface of a multilayered film (see Sawazaki, description of embodiments) produced by using the method for producing a multilayered film; and releasing a protective film (Tanimoto et al, [0040]).
Claim 6, a surface potential of the film when the multilayered film in a rolled state is pulled out at 50 cm/s is -3 kV or greater and 3 kV or less (see Sawazaki, Table 1, Example 1 in description of embodiments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined film/method as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Sawazaki for the purpose of reducing unwanted peeling of layers.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto et al and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoshino (JP 2017-146492).
The Prior Art discloses all of the elements above. However, the Prior Art does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Hoshino discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, antistatic layer has a surface specific resistance of 1014Q/sq or less (Hoshino, description of embodiments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined film/method as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Hoshino for the purpose of improving the handling properties of a film and reducing and mitigate static charges.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
September 11, 2025