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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 9/18/2025. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 5, 6 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues French et al. does not teach attaching a protective film prior to performing primer treatment, and Applicant claims doing so provides special advantages. However, Examiner notes the protective film is minimally mentioned and clearly not central to the process description, but present upon completion of the final laminate. Applicant appears to suggest that adding it after must be the default process in French et al., but French et al is completely silent and ambiguous on when the protective film lamination is added, providing no guidance whatsoever when it is added for steps before or after, but clearly indicating it is present in the final laminate. Examiner submits the teaches in French et al as to when the protective layers is added are completely ambiguous because the process language only includes a description of the active layers. Nothing definitively states the protective film is only added after processing.
Further, it is known individual optical layers may be protected with protective films prior to any lamination to protect their optical characteristics, wherein the protective film is only removed upon required processing on the side covered by the film (See, for example, Kobayahi et al., US 6,068,794, col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 4, indicating a single optical layer may be protected on both sides with a film to ensure optical clarity, the protective layer only removed when access to that side is required). It is further known for protective films to already be present on polycarbonate layers before the time of lamination and further processing (See, for example, Schoeppel et al., US 2003/0179687, page 9, paragraph [0105], indicating a removable protective film [7] is on a polycarbonate film prior to lamination and processing). Thus, since French et al. is completely silent as to when the protective film is added, it would have been obvious to add it at known times to utilize known advantages. Adding the film before processing would protect the PC film optical clarity on the side to which it is applied until such time processing is required on that side. Since French et al. does not teaches any required processing on the side on which the protective film is applied. It would have been advantageous add the protective film on the PC film prior to any processing or lamination in order to protect optical clarity throughout such processing that does not involve this side of the PC film.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection using Schoeppel et al. (US 2003/0179687) and Kobayashi et al. (US 2016/0216804).
Examiner notes Applicant argues the protective film is taught as being polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The Examiner disagrees and submits there is no material mentioned at all for the protective layers. French et al. teaches PET as a suitable layer of the “laminate,” wherein it is clear the laminate refers to the active layers, and NOT the protective layers (See, for example, page 4, paragraph [0032], explaining the protectives are “on the exterior surfaces” of the laminate, and thus not part of the laminate). Thus, PET is a suitable active layer in the laminate and the protective material layer is not defined in French et al. at all.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French et al. (US 2018/0200973) in view of Schoeppel et al. (US 2003/0179687) and/or Kobayashi et al. (US 2016/0216804), and further in view of Kobayashi et al., US 6,068,794) (Hereinafter “Kobayashi2”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, French teaches a method for manufacturing a polarizing film (See page 1, paragraph [0014], wherein the polyvinyl alcohol film is polarized, thus making the product as reasonably being considered a polarizing film), the method comprising:
treating one side of the polycarbonate (PC) film with a hydrophilic surface treatment comprising 3-aminoprpyltriethoxysilane in water at 5%, or 5.7% (note a solution implies a step of dissolving the solute in the solvent) at 60 degree C (thus implying the solution was heated to this temperature), by immersing the PC film in the heating solution for 90 seconds, i.e. 1.5 minutes (See page 5, paragraph [0044] and page 6, paragraph [0061], and note a “withdraw rate” from a heated solution clearly implies immersion in a bath because otherwise there can be no withdraw; note this treatment will inherently cause “saponification” and as it is referred to in the instant specification of the PC film since all PC films have ester groups and the exposure conditions and concentration is identical; note this identical treatment also must create a hydrophilic surface as claimed, again because it is an identical treatment of an identical material under identical conditions);
drying the surface-treated PC film portion (See page 5, paragraph [0044] and page 6, paragraph [0064], note drying produces a dried film);
and manufacturing the polarizing film by attaching a first and dried PC film portion to opposing sides of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film with a water-based adhesive (See page 5, paragraph [0045], and note the PVOH, i.e. polyvinyl alcohol, adhesive is in a water solution and thus is a water-based adhesive, see page 2, paragraph [0015]).
French et al. further teaches a protective film may be on each PC film on the opposite side from which it is laminated to the PVA/PVOH film (See page 4, paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1). French et al is silent on the substance of the protective film, which suggests the material is not critical and know film would have been suitable. Thus, any known substances used as protective films on PC would have predictably been suitable to use as the material for the protective film. It is well-known polyethylene is one such suitable substance used as a protective film on PC (See, for example, Schoeppel et al., page 13, paragraph [0150], page 16, paragraph [0197] and Fig. 2, teaching one suitable protective film [7] on a polycarbonate film [5] is low density polyethylene, i.e. a type of polyethylene; and/or Kobayashi et al., page 12, paragraph [0155] and page 15, paragraph [0212], teaching protection films, including those covering PC films, are known to suitably include polyethylene). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize polyethylene as the material of the undefined protection film. Polyethylene would have predictably been a suitable and advantageous protection film material as a common, low-cost material known to be used as a protective film on PC films in various applications.
French et al. further teaches that the purpose of the amino silane treatment is to improve adhesive of the PC film to the PVA/PVOH film (See page 4, paragraph [0039]). This suggests only the side of the PC film to be bonded to the PVA film, i.e. the side opposite the protective film, is necessarily treated with the amino silane. French et al. is completely silent as to whether the protective film is disposed on the PC film before or after immersion since there is no details at all regards its application. It is known individual optical layers, such as the PC films in French et al., may be protected with protective films prior to any lamination to protect their optical characteristics, wherein the protective film is only removed upon required processing on the side covered by the film (See, for example, Kobayashi2, col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 4, indicating a single optical layer may be protected on both sides with a film to ensure optical clarity, the protective layer only removed when access to that side is required). It is further known for protective films to already be present on polycarbonate layers before the time of lamination and further processing (See, for example, Schoeppel et al., page 9, paragraph [0105], indicating a removable protective film [7] is on a polycarbonate film prior to lamination and processing).
Further, Examiner submits the timing of the lamination of the protective film before or after treatment is not critical French et al. because prior lamination would not inhibit treatment of the PC film laminated to the PVA film, which is the purpose of amino silane treatment. Thus, Examiner submits it at least would have been obvious to laminate the protective film prior to immersion of the PC film because doing so would have had minimal impact of the suitability of the process and final product. Further, such a film would protect the optical clarity of the side to which it is applied until such time processing is required on that side. Since French et al. does not teach any required processing on the side on which the protective film is applied, it would have been advantageous to keep the protective film in place throughout processing and lamination in order to protect optical clarity of the side of the PC film throughout processing when no direct treatment is required on this side.
Note Claim 8 is taught above wherein the water-based adhesive is taught a polyvinyl alcohol adhesive in French et al.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746