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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2011-107597) in view of Miller et al. (US 3,449,257) and Burkhardt et al. (US 2002/0086947).
Regarding claim 1, Kawai teaches a light diffusion film for a backlight device (“a diffuser for lighting fixtures”) (Paragraph [0001]). The film is formed from two polyolefins which are incompatible with each other at a blending ratio of 10/90 to 90/10 (Paragraphs [0029]-[0038]). The diffusion films have a haze of 95 to 100% and a total light transmittance of 70 to 100% (Paragraph [0018]). The films may also include various additives (Paragraph [0039]).
Kawai is silent with respect to the films including a photo-responsive additive present at a concentration of 50 to 400 ppm.
Miller teaches optical brightening compositions including hydrophobic polymers and nonmigrating optical brighteners (Col. 1, Lines 10-14). The optical brightener is representative of Formula I in column 2 and provide a composition the ability to achieve a high level of brightness and absorb UV wavelengths in the range of 360 to 400 nm and stability during extrusion of the compositions (Col. 1, Lines 43-51; Col. 2, Lines 1-47). The brighteners are present in an amount ranging from 0.001 wt% to 0.25 wt% (Col. 2, Lines 33-47). The hydrophobic polymers may be polyethylenes and polypropylenes (Col. 2, Lines 53-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the light diffusion films, which aim to improve brightness to devices (Paragraph [0064]), with the nonmigrating optical brighteners of formula I which to achieve a high level of brightness and absorb UV wavelengths in the range of 360 to 400 nm and stability during extrusion of the compositions as taught by Miller. Additionally, as discussed above, the brighteners are including in a weight range of 0.001% to 0.25% (10 to 2500 ppm), overlapping with the claimed range.
Kawai is silent with respect to the polyolefins including ethylene-propylene random copolymer with 5-15% ethylene content and ethylene-propylene impact copolymer with 40-70% ethylene content. However, Kawai does appreciate improving the mechanical properties of the films including the properties of heat resistance, dimensional stability, rigidity and flame retardance (Paragraph [0053]).
Burkhardt teaches polypropylene impact copolymer compositions with improved impact properties (Paragraph [0002]; [0013]). The compositions include from 40% to 95% by weight of a component A being a propylene homopolymer with less than 10% by weight of ethylene (“ethylene-propylene random copolymer with 5-15% ethylene content”) and 5% to 60% by weight of a component B being a propylene copolymer with 20% to 70% by weight of ethylene (“ethylene-propylene impact copolymer with 40% to 70% ethylene content”) (Paragraphs [0014]-[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the polyolefin blend with 40% to 95% by weight of a component A being a propylene homopolymer with less than 10% by weight of ethylene (“ethylene-propylene random copolymer with 5-15% ethylene content”) and 5% to 60% by weight of a component B being a propylene copolymer with 20% to 70% by weight of ethylene (“ethylene-propylene impact copolymer with 40% to 70% ethylene content”) as taught by Burkhardt which teaches improved impact resistance and wherein Kawai aims to improve luminous properties of the films in addition to the mechanical properties of the films.
Regarding claim 2, Kawai teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the nonmigrating optical brighteners are represented by formula I, which is a bis-benzoxazolyl-thiophene compound.
Regarding claim 5, Kawai teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 4. As discussed above, Miller teaches the optical brighteners with the structure of chemical formula one which illustrates a 2,2 (2,5 thiophenediyl) bis 5 (1,1 dimethylethyl)benzoxazole compound at a content rate of 10 to 2500 ppm.
Regarding claim 10, Kawai teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the haze of the films is 95% to 100% and the total luminous transmittance is 70% to 100%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-7, applicant argues, through the use of a Declaration, that the weight ratio of the claimed first polymer to the claimed second polymer being 70:30 in the presence or the absence of a photo-responsive additive, provides unexpected desirable results over ratios of 65:35 and 75:25. Specifically, the ratio of 65:35 results in diffusers which are either visible or partially visible, whereas the claimed ratio achieves a not visible result. The ratios of 75:25 achieve luminous efficacy of 72.03% (without 100 ppm of photo-responsive additives) and 74.87% (with 100 ppm of photo-responsive additive) whereas the ratio of 70:30 achieves 76.41% (without additive) and 79.14% (with additive). Similarly, the radiant power achieved by the ratio of 75:25 is less than the claimed 70:30.
The examiner finds the data submitted in the declaration as being unpersuasive such that the data is not fully commensurate in scope with the instant claims and does not establish criticality below and above the instantly claimed ratio.
Firstly, the data needs to be commensurate in scope with what is required by the instant claims and claim 1 requires the claimed ratio of the first polymer to the second polymer to be from 70:30 in addition to a photo-responsive additive in a range of 50 ppm to 400 ppm. As such, the examples comparing the ratios of 65:35 and 75:25 to 70:30 without the photo-responsive additive are not commensurate in scope and do not establish criticality with respect to the claimed invention.
Even further, the only examples with the photo-responsive additives are at a loading content of 100 ppm, whereas the claimed invention requires 50 ppm to 400 ppm. As such, the examples are not fully commensurate in scope such that it is unclear as to how the ratios are affected when the amount of the additive decreases to 50 ppm or, more importantly, increases to 200, 300, and 400 ppm. This is evident with respect to the 65:35 ratio such that without the additive, the diffusers are visible, which is recognized as being undesirable. However, when the additive is included at 100 ppm, the diffuser becomes partially visible. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that including more of the additive could result in a not visible result. Lastly, it is noted that it is unclear as to what determines visibility, partial visibility or non-visibility. There is no adequate description distinguishing these properties in the instant specification.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the examples are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and fail to establish criticality in this aspect.
Secondly, with respect to establishing criticality above and below the claimed ratio of 70:30, the examiner notes there are issues with establishing this criticality. As noted above, when the ratio of 65:35 is provided with 100 ppm of the photo-responsive additive, the visibility is reduced to partial visibility. It is unclear if this visibility is further reduced when more of the photo-responsive additive is included (200 ppm, 300 ppm, 400 ppm). Furthermore, the ratio of 69:31, which is outside of the claimed range, could be provided with 100 ppm of the additive and have no visibility. Ultimately, it is unclear whether there is no visibility once the ratio is 70:30 or at some point between 65:35 and 70:30. Therefore, criticality has not been established below the ratio of 70:30.
With respect to values above the claimed ratio of 70:30, the examiner recognizes a reduced luminous efficacy and radiant power. However, for similar reasons above, criticality has not been established above the claimed ratio. Initially, it is noted that the diffusers with a 75:25 ratio are not visible with respect to the LED test, which is desirable. Furthermore, when 100 ppm of a photo-responsive additive is included, the luminous efficacy is 74.87% and, without the additive, the luminous efficacy is 72.03%. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inclusion of more of the additive (i.e. 150, 200, 300, 400 ppm), the luminous efficacy would increase, potentially to above 75%. The desired luminous efficacy appears to be 75% to 85% according to instant claim 10. Therefore, the examiner contends the ratio of 75:25 appears to provide desired results when commensurate in scope with the claim such that the claim includes a wider range than just 100 ppm of a photo-responsive additive.
Ultimately, claim 1 still stands rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C 103 in view of the combination of Kawai, Miller and Burkhardt and the current rejection is made FINAL.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783