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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komoriya (U.S. 20030232940).
Komoriya teaches fluorine containing polymers made from a monomer (I) below. (Abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
202
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This anticipates the General Formula I when R1-R3 = H, L1 = phenylene and Z1 = the fluorinated substituents off the benzene ring.
These are used to make resist compositions and anti-reflection films on surfaces. ¶[0125] and ¶[0126] which anticipates the composition of Claim 9, the optical film of Claim 11 and the hardcoat film of Claim 13 as the anti-reflective film is reasonably suggested to be capable of being a hardcoat film as Applicant does not further define a hardcoat film.
Claim 1-2, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishio (WO2019026522; Nishio U.S. 20200159117 national stage entry used as English translation).
Nishio teaches a variety of fluorine containing polymers which anticipate Formula I. See below.
PNG
media_image2.png
748
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
748
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
L in each case is the boxed in area on the left (or alternatively, the boxed in area on the right). Additionally, p-74 and p-75 anticipate Formula I (not reproduced) for similar reason as above. P-203, P-204, P-207 (page 31) also anticipate for similar reasons as above.
PNG
media_image4.png
596
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above formulas anticipate Formula II of Claim 1 when L is a divalent linking group or a single bond.
P-208 anticipates Claim 2 due to the styrene additional monomer. Similar P-212 and P-213 and P-217 (page 32) also anticipate Claim 2 for similar reasons.
Claim 8 is anticipated by any of p-12 through p-18
PNG
media_image5.png
796
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With W being the circled trivalent group.
Additionally,
PNG
media_image6.png
262
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With the cyclohexane group being anticipating W.
Compositions of the above compounds are used to make resist patterns. See ¶[0006]. This anticipates Claim 9 and Claim 13 as the resist layer is reasonably suggested to must be hard enough to function as resist layer which anticipates a hard coat film.
Claim 1, 9-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosokawa (JP2007272185; reference made to included English translation).
Hosokawa teaches compositions comprising a liquid crystal compound (LC) (which may be a polymerizable LC compound or a LC compound) and a separate polymer for adjusting the average tilt of the LC compound. (¶[0009]) These compositions are part of retardation plates which are optical films that adjust the polarity of the light due to the LC compound present. ¶[0191-00194] The term “plate” and the films being taught to include a protective film reasonably suggest these retardation plates must possess a hardcoat film. These films anticipate Claim 11, Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14. Compositions comprising the polymerizable LC compound in an amount of preferably 50 to 99 wt% of the anisotropic layer are taught in ¶[0133]. This section and the above ¶[0009] anticipate the compositions of Claim 9 and Claim 10.
Hosokawa teaches multiple polymers (P-24 (¶[0038]), P-40 (¶[0039) and P-8(¶[0037]) which anticipate Formula (I) of Claim 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
140
298
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In these compounds, CF = L1 of the instant claims and x = 2, therefore L1 must be trivalent as it has three branches.
Note that while Hosokawa teaches multiples sections ¶[0061]-¶[0110](for the LC compound) and ¶[00158] (for a polymerizable B compound) that appear to read over Claims 5-7 and Claim 4, these compounds are not suggested to be polymerized with the fluorine containing polymer above while the instant claims required them to be part of the polymer.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa (JP2007272185; reference made to included English translation).
Hosokawa is applied as above. Hosokawa does not exemplify a combination of monomers in the fluorine containing polymer which further contains a monomer as recited by Claim 2. (i.e. a monomer with an aromatic unit).
In ¶[0026] teaches the polymer containing fluorine for adjusting the tilt angle can further comprises a unit A7 which may be styrene or contain an aromatic group such as those in P-69 or P-70 (¶[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to practice the invention of Hosokawa, in particular that of P-24, P-8 or P-40, with an additional monomer unit from styrene or the aromatic units of P-69 and P-70 because Hosokawa suggests this as above.
Styrene reads over Claim 2 when L6 = single bond and P = phenyl, R8 = hydrogen.
P-69 reads over Claim 2 when L6 = -COO- and P = phenyl, R8 = methyl.
P-70 reads over Claim 2 when L6 = -COO- and P = naphthyl, R8 = hydrogen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is Hosokawa (JP2007272185; reference made to included English translation) which teaches polarizing plates made from liquid crystal and fluorine containing polymers. However, the liquid crystal component is specifically taught as a separate component, not polymerized with the fluorine containing polymer (relevant to Claims 5-7). Additionally, the boron monomer of Claim 4 is also taught by Hosokawa however, as with the LC polymer of Hosokawa above, it is not meant to be polymerized into or part of the fluorine containing polymer. Finally, the polymerizable monomer of Claim 3 is also not reasonably suggested to be in the fluorine containing polymer.
Meiraku (JP 2012072287; reference made to the included English translation) teaches a fluorine containing polymer as a surfactant which contains a polymerizable monomer according to Claim 3. However, Claim 4 recites the polymer further comprises said monomer and, additionally, it is entirely unclear what the final structure of this polymer even looks like (Synthesis example 2, ¶[0072] refers to a fluorine containing oligomer being produce from a reaction which does not even appear to have any fluorine containing reagents used) and whether there are any polymerizable units left when the graft polymerization is completed as required by Claim 3.
To arrive at the claimed polymer in Claims 3-7 using Hosokawa would require hindsight especially in light of the function of this polymer (tuning the tilt angle of the LC) and what any of these modifications would do to that capability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766