DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 are pending as filed on 10/17/2022. No amendments were submitted with the response filed on 7/21/2025.
No new rejections have been made; therefore, this action is properly made final.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada et al (KR 2020001994A; English language equivalent US 20240043619A1 cited) in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0011726). The reasons are as previously set forth in the action mailed on 5/14/2025.
Claim(s) 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanada et al (KR 2020001994A; English language equivalent US 20240043619A1 cited) in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0011726), and further in view of Park et al (US 2018/0044476). The reasons are as previously set forth in the action mailed on 5/14/2025.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al (WO 2022071443A1; Google machine translation cited) in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0011726). The reasons are as previously set forth in the action mailed on 5/14/2025.
Claim(s) 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuta et al (WO 2022071443A1; Google machine translation cited) in view of Hasegawa et al (US 2015/0011726), and further in view of Park et al (US 2018/0044476). The reasons are as previously set forth in the action mailed on 5/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 3) that one would not be motivated to consult Hasegawa when trying to form a film having a light transmittance of 87.0% or more at 400 to 700 nm because Hasegawa achieves a maximum of 82% light transmittance at 400 nm in their examples. However, the light transmittance property of a film measured at 400 nm differs from the light transmittance property of a film measured over the entire 400 nm to 700 nm wavelength region. Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence which explains why a film having a light transmittance of 82% at 400 nm (as taught by Hasegawa) would be expected to have a total light transmittance lower than 87.0% when measured over the entire 400-700 nm wavelength region. Because the percentage of light transmittance depends on the wavelength(s) at which the property is measured, and because the lower light transmittance percentage disclosed by Hasegawa was measured at a single wavelength rather than over an entire wavelength region, Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to consult Hasegawa when trying to form a film having a total light transmittance of 87.0% or more over the entire 400 nm to 700 nm wavelength region is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766