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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-9, 16-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1,10-15 will be examined.
Drawings
The drawings with 1 Sheets of Figs. 1-2 received on 12/27/2022 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hatanaka et al (US 2015/0042943 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatanaka teaches (fig 2d) an optical film (optical film 100, para 277) comprising:
a third layer (third phase difference layer),
a second primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, The sticky agent between third and second phase difference layers in fig 1d is considered the second primer),
a first layer (second phase difference layer),
a first primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, The sticky agent between second and first phase difference layers in fig 1d is considered the first primer), and
a second layer (first phase difference layer) sequentially stacked in the stated order (“fig. 2(d) shows an optical film 100 having a base material, a first phase difference layer, a second phase difference layer and a third phase difference layer laminated in this order”, para 277).
wherein each of the first primer layer and the second primer layer (“For pasting, adhesives described later can be used”, para 276, “The adhesive includes, for example, a sticky agent, an aqueous adhesive and an active energy ray curable adhesive”, para 279, sticky agent between third and second phase difference layers and second and first phase difference layers) has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 0 0C (“acrylic sticky agents containing an acrylic resin having a glass transition temperature Tg of 00C”, para 280) and is a (meth) acrylate based primer layer (“The sticky agent is obtained, in general, by radical-polymerizing an acrylic monomer mixture containing a (meth)acrylate as the main component”, para 280).
However, Hatanaka does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 50 0C to 100 0C.
Hatanaka and Yoda are related as primer layers.
Yoda teaches
the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) has a glass transition temperature of 50 0C to 100 0C (“a polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 60° C. or more”, “polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 80° C. or more, more preferably a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 100° C. or more”, para 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka to include the primer with glass transition temperature of Yoda for the purpose of further improvement in adhesiveness (para 56).
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 50 0C to 100 0C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
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 claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0044] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 60°C or more. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim(s) 10-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al (US 2015/0042943 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and further in view of Hintze et al (WO 95/28453).
Regarding Claim 10, Hatanaka-Yoda teaches the optical film according to claim 1.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the (meth) acrylate based primer layer is formed of a primer layer composition comprising a copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic monomer having a glass transition temperature of 10 °C to 100 °C in a homopolymer phase.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the (meth) acrylate-based primer layer is formed of a primer layer composition (priming plastic, para 7) comprising a copolymer (copolymer, para 21) of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer (“mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, para 23) having a glass transition temperature of 10°C to 100 °C (“glass transition temperature”, “preferably 10°C to 80°C”, para 36) in a homopolymer phase.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
However, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze does not teach
a glass transition temperature of 10°C to 100 °C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
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 claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0044] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 10°C to 80 °C. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding Claim 11, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include the (meth)acrylic monomer comprises an alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic ester of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 12, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the monomer mixture further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the monomer mixture (monomer, para 24) further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 13, Hatanaka-Yoda-Hintze teaches the optical film according to claim 12.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound comprises at least one selected from among methyl (meth)acrylate, ethyl (meth)acrylate, n-propyl (meth)acrylate, iso-propyl (meth)acrylate, n-butyl (meth)acrylate, iso-butyl (meth)acrylate, t-butyl (meth)acrylate, n-hexyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl (meth)acrylate, n-octyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate, stearyl (meth)acrylate, butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2-methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) comprises at least one selected from among methyl (meth)acrylate (, ethyl (meth)acrylate, n-propyl (meth)acrylate, iso-propyl (meth)acrylate, n-butyl (meth)acrylate, iso-butyl (meth)acrylate, t-butyl (meth)acrylate, n-hexyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl (meth)acrylate, n-octyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate, stearyl (meth)acrylate, butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2-methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate (methyl, ethyl, propyl, hexyl methacrylate, para 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 14, Hatanaka-Yoda optical film according to claim 13.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound comprises at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, 2- methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) comprises at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester (butyl acetate, para 56, a mixture of butyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate is mixed with butyl acetate, para 56), butyl formic ester, 2- methyl-2-propenoic acid cyclohexyl ester, 2-propenoic acid 2-methyl-cyclohexyl ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include an ester-based compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 15, Hatanaka-Yoda optical film according to claim 10.
However, Hatanaka-Yoda does not teach
wherein the primer layer composition further comprises at least one selected from among a peel strength-enhancing compound and a curing agent.
Hatanaka-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the primer layer composition (priming plastic, para 7) further comprises at least one selected from among a peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39) and a curing agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primer of Hatanaka-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/27/2026