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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s assertion, see pages 2-3 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks mailed 12/29/2025, that example 5 of Bellman does not disclose a reflectance graph of a polyimide-based film including a polyimide-based substrate, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, paragraph 0082 of Bellman discloses that the substrate 110 (which is the same substrate as utilized in example 5 as 510) may be made of polyetherimide. Therefore, Bellman does teach utilizing a polyimide-based substrate for a polyimide-based film. Since Bellman discloses polyetherimide as a usable material for the substrate, the included reflectance graphs for a film including substrate 510 would still teach the disclosed invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman et. al US 20140376094 (hereinafter “Bellman”), in further view of Harris et. al US Patent 5,344,916 (hereinafter “Harris”).
Regarding claim 1, Bellman teaches a polyimide-based film used for a display device comprising:
a polyimide-based substrate (Bellman fig. 18 – 510, see also abstract and para. 0082 – substrate 110 may include polyetherimide); and
a first coating layer (Bellman fig. 18 – 531A, specifically the seventh layer up from 510) disposed on the polyimide-based substrate (Bellman fig. 18 shows all layers of 531A being disposed on 510),
wherein the film has a reflectance oscillation ratio
O
r
, calculated using the following Equation 1, of 1.0 or less (see annotated Bellman fig. 19 below for covered wavelength ranges), and a reflectance graph slope
G
r
, calculated using the following Equation 2, of 0.122 or less, based on a reflectance graph obtained by measuring reflectance in a wavelength range of 380 nm to 780 nm (Bellman fig. 19 measures from 350 to 1050 nm, encapsulating the entire range within):
<Equation 1>
O
r
=
O
m
1
*
O
m
2
-
O
m
1
-
O
m
2
/
M
i
n
O
m
1
,
O
m
2
(Bellman fig. 19 – where
O
m
1
≈ 0.5 and
O
m
2
≈ 0.7 as calculated using Equation 3 in each wavelength range, so
O
r
≈ -1.8)
<Equation 2>
G
r
=
R
m
1
-
R
m
2
/
R
m
2
(Bellman fig. 19 – where the slope of the graph between the middle points of
R
m
1
≈ 0.1, and
R
m
2
≈ 0.1 as calculated, so
G
r
≈ 0)
wherein in Equation 1,
O
m
1
is a mean
O
m
of reflectance oscillation values in a wavelength range of 500 nm to 550 nm, and
O
m
2
is a mean
O
m
of reflectance oscillation values in a wavelength range of 650 nm to 780 nm,
wherein the means
O
m
1
and
O
m
2
of reflectance oscillation values are calculated using the following Equation 3, and Min(
O
m
1
,
O
m
2
) is a smaller mean
O
m
of the means
O
m
1
and
O
m
2
of reflectance oscillation values,
PNG
media_image1.png
808
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in Equation 2,
R
m
1
is an arithmetic mean of a reflectance corresponding to a first peak
P
1
and a reflectance corresponding to a first valley
V
1
in a wavelength range of 500 nm to 780 nm in the reflectance graph, and
R
m
2
is an arithmetic mean of a reflectance value corresponding to a final peak
P
f
and a reflectance value corresponding to a final valley
V
f
in the wavelength range of 500 nm to 780 nm in the reflectance graph (see Bellman fig. 19 below for the wavelength range and middle points between the first and final peaks and valleys),
PNG
media_image2.png
808
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
<Equation 3>
O
m
=(1/n)*Σ(
O
k
)
wherein in Equation 3,
O
k
is an oscillation value in the corresponding wavelength range, and n is a number of oscillation values in the corresponding wavelength range, and wherein each of the oscillation values is a difference in reflectance values corresponding to a pair of a peak
P
k
and a valley
V
k
adjacent to each other,
wherein the peak (
P
k
=
P
i
,
P
2
,
P
3
, ...,
P
n
) and the valley (
V
k
=
V
i
,
V
2
,
V
3
, ...,
V
n
) are repeatedly appear in the reflectance graph of the film as the wavelength increases within a specific wavelength range (see Bellman fig. 19 above – peaks and valleys used are labeled above, and the repeating peaks and valleys are shown in the graph).
Bellman does not specify wherein the polyimide-based substrate has an X-axis direction refractive index
N
x
of 1.57 to 1.67, a Y-axis direction refractive index
N
y
of 1.57 to 1.67, and a Z-axis direction refractive index
N
z
of 1.53 to 1.57.
In a similar field of endeavor, Harris teaches wherein the polyimide-based substrate (Harris table 1 – lists multiple polyimides with listed refractive indices which can be used for Harris fig. 2-3 - 30 as disclosed by col. 37 lines 37-44) has an X-axis direction refractive index
N
x
of 1.57 to 1.67 (Harris table 1 – n|| is 1.593), a Y-axis direction refractive index
N
y
of 1.57 to 1.67 (Harris table 1 – n|| is 1.593), and a Z-axis direction refractive index
N
z
of 1.53 to 1.57 (Harris table 1 – nꞱ is 1.568) for the purpose of controlling the magnitude of negative birefringence (Harris col. 4 lines 25-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polyimide-based substrate has an X-axis direction refractive index
N
x
of 1.57 to 1.67, a Y-axis direction refractive index
N
y
of 1.57 to 1.67, and a Z-axis direction refractive index
N
z
of 1.53 to 1.57 as taught by Harris in the polyimide-based film of Bellman in order to control the magnitude of negative birefringence (Harris col. 4 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 2, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Harris further teaches
the substrate is birefringent (Harris col. 4 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 5, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Bellman further teaches further comprising a second coating layer (Bellman fig. 18 - 540) disposed on the substrate (Bellman fig. 18 – 540 is disposed on 510).
Regarding claim 7, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 3, and Bellman further teaches wherein the first coating layer (531A) is disposed between the substrate (510) and the second coating layer (540, Bellman fig. 18 shows all of 531A disposed between 540 and 510).
Regarding claim 9, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Bellman further teaches further comprising a third coating layer (Bellman fig. 18 – 531c) disposed on the substrate (510, Bellman fig. 18 – shows 531c disposed on 510).
Regarding claim 14, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Bellman further teaches wherein the first coating layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 3.4 μm (Bellman fig. 18 – 531a, specifically the layer shown in the annotated fig. below – table 12 shows the layer has a thickness of 90.07 nm or 0.09007 μm).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
695
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 5, and Bellman further teaches wherein the second coating layer (540) has a thickness of 1 to 14 μm (Bellman fig. 18 – 540, table 12 shows the layer has a thickness of 2000 nm or 2 μm).
Regarding claim 16, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 9, and Bellman further teaches wherein the third coating layer (531c) has a thickness of 1 μm or less (Bellman fig. 18 – 531c, table 12 shows the layer has a thickness of 7.05 nm or 0.00705 μm).
Regarding claim 18, Bellman and Harris teach a display device comprising:
a display panel (Bellman para. 0002-0005 and 0016); and
the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1 disposed on the display panel (see above rejection to claim 1 under Bellman and Harris, see also para. 0002-0005 and 0016).
Claims 4, 6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman and Harris as cited for claims 1, 5, and 9 rejections above, further in view of Heo et. al US 20200012016 (hereinafter “Heo”).
Regarding claim 4, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Bellman further teaches the first coating layer (531A).
Bellman and Harris do not teach wherein the first coating layer has a refractive index
N
1
satisfying the following Equation 4: <Equation 4> 1.455≤
N
1
≤1.633
In the same field of endeavor, Heo teaches wherein the first coating layer (Heo fig. 1 – 12c, see also table 1 – hard coat layer) has a refractive index
N
1
satisfying the following Equation 4:
<Equation 4>
1.455≤
N
1
≤1.633 (Heo para. 0053 and table 1 describe 12c having a refractive index of 1.52 which lies within and thus anticipates the claimed range, and further teaches a range for the refractive index between 1.40 and 1.70, which overlaps the claimed range, then further narrows the range to between 1.45 and 1.60 which lies within the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03) for the purpose of enhancing the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index for a first coating layer within the claimed range in order to enhance the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073).
Regarding claim 6, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 5.
Bellman and Harris do not teach that the second coating layer (Bellman 540) is disposed between the substrate (Bellman 510; Harris 105) and the first coating layer (Bellman 531a). However, Bellman does teach having multiple layers and sub-layers on a substrate (Bellman fig. 18 – multiple layers on 510, see also para. 0147).
In the same field of endeavor, Heo teaches the second coating layer (Heo fig. 1 – 12b) is disposed between the substrate (Heo fig. 1 – 12a) and the first coating layer (Heo fig. 1 – 12c) for the purpose of enhancing the adhesion between the base layer 12a and the hard coat layer 12c (Heo para. 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second coating layer disposed between the substrate and the first coating layer in order to enhance adhesion between the base layer and the hard coat layer (Heo para. 0088).
Regarding claim 8, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 5, and Bellman further teaches the second coating layer (540).
Bellman and Harris do not teach wherein the second coating layer has a refractive index
N
2
satisfying the following Equation 5: <Equation 5> 1.245≤
N
2
≤1.628
In the same field of endeavor, Heo teaches wherein the second coating layer (Heo fig. 1 – 12b) has a refractive index
N
2
satisfying the following Equation 5:
<Equation 5>
1.245≤
N
2
≤1.628 (Heo para. 0053 and table 1 describe 12b having a refractive index
N
2
of 1.60 which lies within and thus anticipates the calculated range, and further teaches a range for the refractive index between 1.50 and 1.70, which overlaps the claimed range values, and further narrows the range to be between the values 1.53 and 1.58 which lies within the calculated range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)) for the purpose of enhancing the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index for a first coating layer within the claimed range in order to enhance the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073).
Regarding claim 10, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 9, and Bellman further teaches the third coating layer (531c).
Bellman and Harris do not teach wherein the third coating layer has a refractive index
N
3
satisfying the following Equation 6: <Equation 6> 1.245≤
N
3
≤1.628
In the same field of endeavor, Heo teaches wherein the third coating layer (Heo fig. 1 – 12e) has a refractive index
N
3
satisfying the following Equation 6:
<Equation 6>
1.245≤
N
3
≤1.628 (Heo para. 0056 and table 1 describe 12e having a refractive index
N
3
of 1.29 which lies within and thus anticipates the calculated range, and further teaches a range for the refractive index between 1.10 and 1.40, which overlaps the claimed range values, and is further narrowed to a range of 1.25 to 1.35 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)) for the purpose of enhancing the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index for a first coating layer within the claimed range in order to enhance the optical properties of a display device (Heo para. 0073).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman and Harris as cited for claim 1 rejection above, in view of Shioya et. al US 20180341122 (hereinafter “Shioya”).
Regarding claim 11, Bellman and Harris teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 1, and Bellman further teaches the first coating layer (Bellman fig. 18 – 531a, specifically the seventh layer above 510).
Bellman and Harris do not teach wherein the first coating layer comprises a light-transmissive matrix and particles dispersed in the light-transmissive matrix.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shioya teaches wherein the first coating layer (Shioya para. 0068 – the hard coat film) comprises a light-transmissive matrix and particles dispersed in the light-transmissive matrix (Shioya para. 0068) for the purpose of preventing scratches (Shioya para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light-transmissive matrix with particles in order to prevent scratches.
Regarding claim 12, Bellman, Harris, and Shioya teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 11, and Shioya further teaches wherein the light-transmissive matrix comprises at least one of a siloxane-based resin (Shioya para. 0068 – the hard coat comprises organosiloxane-based resin), an acrylic-based resin, a urethane-based resin, or an epoxy-based resin.
Regarding claim 13, Bellman, Harris, and Shioya teach the polyimide-based film used for a display device according to claim 11, and Shioya further teaches wherein the particles comprise at least one of zirconia (
Z
r
O
2
), silica (
S
i
O
2
), alumina (
A
l
2
O
3
) (Shioya para. 0068 – the particles are an inorganic oxide), titanium dioxide (
T
i
O
2
), styrene, or acryl.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872