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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-26 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-10 are canceled in the current application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
Figure 23 and Figure 24 depict components 330, 330a, and 330b that are not mentioned or defined in the specification as originally filed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “… a cationic surfactant, and an anionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant.” Claim 24 includes an unnecessary “and,” and should be amended to instead recite “… a cationic surfactant,
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12, 13, 18, and 24 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.
Claims 12, 18, and 24 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting “at least one selected from the group consisting of a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant.” Alternatively, claim 12 could be amended to recite “at least one of a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, or an amphoteric surfactant.”
For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be interpreted as reciting “where the functional group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group, …, and methylhydrogen.” Alternatively, claim 18 could be amended to recite “where the functional group includes an alkyl group, …, or methylhydrogen.”
For the purposes of examination, claim 24 will be interpreted as reciting “at least one selected from the group consisting of a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant.” Alternatively, claim 24 could be amended to recite “at least one of a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, or an amphoteric surfactant.”
Correction is required.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, where claim 12 recites a list of possible antistatic agent genus alternatives. However, claim 13 recites specific species of each antistatic agent genus, but does not clarify if at least one species satisfies the claim, or if one of each species from each genus is needed to satisfy the claim, or if all of the listed species are required to satisfy the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as requiring at least one of the listed species to satisfy the claim, where claim 13 is interpreted as reciting “the nonionic surfactant includes an amine-based surfactant or a glycerin-based surfactant, the cationic surfactant includes a quaternary ammonium salt, the anionic surfactant includes sulfonate or phosphate, or the amphoteric surfactant includes betaine.”
Claim 18 recites "the functional group." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 depends from claims 11, 14, and 16, where none of these claims provide antecedent basis for “the functional group.” Therefore, claim 18 is considered to be indefinite. However, claim 17 recites “a functional group.” For the purposes of examination, claim 18 is interpreted as instead depending from claim 17, and is interpreted as reciting “The optical path control member of claim 17, wherein ….”
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0033689 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0177459 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Lee teaches a display apparatus (an optical path control member) comprising a second base film 270 (a first substrate), a common electrode 260 (a first electrode), a light control path film 240+250 (a light conversion part) comprising a plurality of protruding patterns and slits (a partition wall portion and an accommodation portion alternately disposed), an adhesive layer 230 disposed between the light path control film 240+250 and a driving electrode 220 (a second electrode), and a first base film 210 (a second substrate) (Lee, Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0014], [0063]-[0065], Fig 17). Lee teaches the light path control film 240+250 accommodation portion 250 has a light transmittance that changes according to an applied voltage (Lee, [0065], [0074]-[0082]). Lee teaches a portion (an upper portion) of the partition wall portion 240 is in contact with the adhesive layer 230 (Lee, Fig 17). Lee teaches the light path control film 240+250 is formed of a UV-curable resin (i.e., a photocurable resin) (Lee, [0069]).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee – Figure 17
Lee remains silent regarding a photocurable resin including an oligomer, a monomer, a photopolymerization initiator, and an additive that includes an antistatic agent such as a nonionic, a cationic, an anionic, or an amphoteric surfactant (as required by claim 12), and remains silent that the additive is included in an amount of 2.0 wt% to 3.0 wt% .
Kim, however, teaches a photocurable resin composition curable by UV rays for optical display devices comprising a urethane acrylate oligomer, a photopolymerizable monomer, a photopolymerization initiator, and functional additives that include surfactants such as a cationic, an anionic, an amphoteric, or a nonionic surfactant (Kim, Abstract, [0006]-[0019], [0038], [0065], [0068], [0122]). Kim teaches the functional additives are included in an amount of about 1 to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts of the photocurable resin composition (about 1 to 10 wt%) (Kim, [0065]). Kim’s additive content range encompasses the claimed range of 2.0 to 3.0 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Since Lee and Kim both disclose photocurable resins for optical display devices that can be cured with UV rays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Kim’s photocurable resin composition as Lee’s UV-curable resin to form the light control path film to yield a display device that has improved adhesive property; has improved wettability; and does not deteriorate physical properties or crack under high temperature, high humidity, or thermal shock as taught by Kim (Kim, [0006]-[0008]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lee teaches the photocurable resin composition comprises urethane acrylate, acrylate monomers, isobornyl acrylate, additives, photoinitiators, and acryloyl morpholine (Kim, [0038]-[0065], Table 2).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lee teaches the accommodation portion 250 contains light blocking particles 281 (light conversion particles) and an electrophoresis liquid 280/283 (a dispersion liquid), where the light conversion particles 281 include carbon black and the dispersion liquid 280/283 includes a surfactant to improve mixing and uniformity (Lee, [0073]-[0081], Figures 2, 4; Kim, [0065], [0068]).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee – Figure 2
Regarding Claim 24, modified Lee teaches the surfactants include cationic, anionic, amphoteric, or nonionic surfactants (Kim, [0065], [0068]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Lee teaches the light conversion particles 281 move in a direction of the first electrode or the second electrode by an applied voltage (Lee, [0073]-[0082]).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Lee teaches a display apparatus comprising a display panel 500 and the optical path control member as discussed above for claim 11 (Lee, [0134]-[0152], Figure 17).
Claims 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0033689 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0177459 A1) as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Kamiyama et al. (WO 201912447 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Lee teaches the display apparatus (optical path control member) as discussed above for claims 11 and 12. Modified Lee teaches the surfactants (antistatic agents) include a cationic, an anionic, an amphoteric, or a nonionic surfactant (Kim, [0065], [0068]).
Modified Lee remains silent regarding the specific species of surfactants listed in claim 13.
Kamiyama, however, teaches a photocurable resin composition for optical display devices comprising photoradical reactive components, a photopolymerization initiator, and a fluorine-containing sulfonium-based (sulfonate) antistatic components (Kamiyama, [0005], [0007], [0012]-[0043]).
Since modified Lee and Kamiyama both disclose photocurable resin compositions for optical display devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Kamiyama’s fluorine-containing sulfonium-based antistatic component as modified Lee’s surfactant to yield a photocurable resin composition that exhibits low haze and excellent antistatic properties even when exposed to high temperature and high humidity environments for a long period of time as taught by Kamiyama (Kamiyama, [0039]-[0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Lee teaches the display apparatus (optical path control member) as discussed above for claims 11, 12, and 13. Modified Lee teaches the photocurable resin composition for forming the light control path film exhibits low haze of 0.7 or less (Kamiyama, [0005]-[0006], [0012]-[0013], [0040], [0097]-[0101], Table 1). Modified Lee’s haze range falls within the claimed range of 9% or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Lee teaches the display apparatus (optical path control member) as discussed above for claims 11, 12, and 13. Modified Lee teaches the photocurable resin composition for forming the light control path film exhibits light transmittance of 90% or more (Kamiyama, [0056]). Modified Lee’s transmittance range falls within the claimed range of 30% or more, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 14-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0033689 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0177459 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kaida et al. (US 2010/0259821 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lee teaches the display apparatus (optical path control member) as discussed above for claim 11. Modified Lee teaches the photocurable resin composition includes additives of silane-based and siloxane-based compounds, and other functional additives of polydimethylsiloxane compounds (Kim, [0062]-[0071]).
Modified Lee remains silent regarding a non-reactive release agent.
Kaida, however, teaches a photocurable composition for an optical element comprising a photocurable monomer, a photopolymerization initiator, a water repellency-imparting agent to achieve excellent mold release properties, and an antistatic agent (Kaida, Abstract, [0006]-[0010], [0111]-[0135]). Kaida teaches the water repellency-imparting agent includes non-reactive agents (Kaida, [0111]-[0118]).
Since modified Lee and Kaida both disclose photocurable compositions for optical elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Kaida’s water repellency-imparting agent into modified Lee’s photocurable resin to yield a composition that exhibits excellent water repellency and improved mold release properties with low volatility as taught by Kaida (Kaida, [0111], [0133]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee teaches the water repellency-imparting agent is included in an amount of 0.02 to 5 parts by mass (Kaida, [0133]). Modified Lee’s water repellency-imparting agent content range overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 wt% or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee teaches the water repellency-imparting agent is included in an amount of 0.02 to 5 parts by mass (Kaida, [0133]). Modified Lee’s water repellency-imparting agent content range encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.3 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, modified Lee teaches the water repellency-imparting agent includes a material in which a functional group (such as a fluorinated alkyl group) is bonded to a polydiorganosiloxane such as polydimethylsiloxane (Kaida, [0111]-[0117]).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Lee teaches the functional additives are included in an amount of about 1 to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts of the photocurable resin composition (about 1 to 10 wt%) (Kim, [0065]), and non-reactive water repellency-imparting agent to impart mold release functionality is included in an amount of 0.02 to 5 parts by mass (Kaida, [0133]). Modified Lee’s total functional additive content range of about 1 to 10 parts by weight encompasses the claimed range of 2.4 to 2.8 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782