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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, and 4-10 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 11/19/2025 Applicant amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer … has a pressure-sensitive adhesive strength to glass of 1.0 N/25 mm to 10 N/25 mm at a peel angle of 90° and a peel rate of 300 mm/min in dry attachment” and also recites “the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer surface has a pressure-sensitive adhesive strength to glass of from 0.2 N/25 mm to 5.0 N/25 mm at a peel angle of 90° and a peel rate of 300 mm/min,” measured after undergoing a process presumably different than “dry attachment.” The claim is indefinite, because it appears that the film cannot be manufactured with two different processes at the same time, or that the second adhesive will have two mutually different physical properties simultaneously, to an extent that the Applicant is not attempting to claim both a broad range and a narrow range with overlapping ranges. For examination purposes the adhesive strengths will be interpreted as claimed in the alternative, thus prior art need only satisfy either of the ranges regardless of process in which such adhesive strength is achieved.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation 1.0 N/25 mm or more, and the claim also recites 10 N/25 mm or more, and 0.2 N/25 to 5.0 N/25 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2 and 4-10 are similarly rejected due to dependency.
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050117217 A1 to Yamaoka et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Yamaoka discloses a polarizing film laminate, comprising: a polarizing plate including a polarizer (Fig. 1 polarizing plate 10); a first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (Fig. 1 pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 11A); a supporting substrate (Fig. 1 compensation layer 12); and a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (Fig. 1 pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 11B), which are laminated in the stated order (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer surface of the polarizing film laminate has a pressure-sensitive adhesive strength to glass of 1.0 N/25 mm to 10 N/25 mm (See Table 1) at a peel angle of 90° and a peel rate of 300 mm/min (para 181) in dry attachment, the second pressure-sensitive adhesive laver is an acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesive composition (para 17 “pressure-sensitive adhesive containing an acrylic polymer”) containing a (meth)acrylic polymer (para 21 “The monomer having the carboxyl group can be, for example, an acrylic acid, a methacrylic acid, a fumaric acid, a maleic acid or an itaconic acid”), having a usage amount of a carboxyl group-containing monomer in 100 parts by weight of monofunctional monomer components being 1 part by weight or less (See para 23), and, the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer surface has a pressure-sensitive adhesive strength to glass of from 0.2 N/25 mm to 5.0 N/25 mm at a peel angle of 90° and a peel rate of 300 mm/min measured after 4 days (para 181) from pressure-bonding the polarizing film laminate to a surface of a glass plate serving as an adherend with water applied to the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer and/or to the surface of the glass plate and the water having been pushed out of an interface between the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer and the surface of the glass plate (This limitation is a product by process claim and will be given little patentable weight. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113)).
Further Yamaoka discloses a usage amount of a carboxyl group-containing monomer in 100 parts by weight of monofunctional monomer components being 1 part by weight or less (para 23 “the copolymerized monomer is preferable, and 0.5 to 10 parts by weight”)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8. Yamaoka further discloses a release liner laminated on an opposite side of the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer to a side on which the supporting substrate is arranged (Fig. 1 release film 13).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190103589 A1 to Iida et al.
Regarding Claim 2. As stated above Yamaoka discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yamaoka does not specifically disclose the supporting substrate has a water absorption ratio of 5.0% or less.
However, Iida discloses the supporting substrate has a water absorption ratio of 5.0% or less (para 48), to maintain optical uniformity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the supporting substrate has a water absorption ratio of 5.0% or less.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20180011233 A1 to Takada et al.
Regarding Claim 4. As stated above Yamaoka discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yamaoka does not specifically disclose the polarizing plate further includes a protective layer arranged on at least one side of the polarizer.
However, Takada discloses the polarizing plate further includes a protective layer arranged on at least one side of the polarizer (Fig. 2 protective film 21) to protect the polarizer from external elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the polarizing plate further includes a protective layer arranged on at least one side of the polarizer.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190081274 A1 to Choi et al.
Regarding Claim 5. As stated above Yamaoka discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yamaoka does not specifically disclose the supporting substrate includes a substrate main body and a functional layer arranged on at least one side thereof
However, Choi discloses the supporting substrate includes a substrate main body and a functional layer arranged on at least one side thereof (Fig. 5 and para 98 first antistatic layer 402, a colored layer 403), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the supporting substrate includes a substrate main body and a functional layer arranged on at least one side thereof.
Regarding Claim 6. Choi further discloses the functional layer is at least one kind of layer selected from an antistatic layer and an antifouling layer (para 98).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka as applied to claim 1
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above Yamaoka discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yamaoka does not specifically disclose a thickness from the polarizing plate to the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is from 50 µm to 500 µm.
However, Yamaoka discloses a thickness from the polarizing plate to the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer “he pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and the adhesive layer can be determined suitably depending on the constituents or the like of the polarizing plate. In general, it is from 1 to 500 nm,” (para 54) “the optical compensation layer has a thickness ranging preferably from 0.1 to 20 µm, more preferably from 0.5 to 15 µm and particularly preferably from 0.7 to 10 µm”; (para 58) “The thickness of the polarizer ranges preferably from 5 to 80 µm” (para 37).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a thickness from the polarizing plate to the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is from 50 µm to 500 µm.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190339421 A1 to Byun et al.
Regarding Claim 9. As stated above Yamaoka discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yamaoka does not specifically disclose a transparent barrier configured to divide a space having placed therein an image display apparatus configured to emit linearly polarized light from a display screen, the barrier having bonded thereto the polarizing film laminate via the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer so that an absorption axis of the polarizer is substantially parallel to a vibration direction of the linearly polarized light to be emitted by the image display apparatus. It is noted that the functional operations of the display apparatus and structural relationship between the polarizer and display do not further limit or modify the transparent barrier, but rather an intended use of the transparent barrier.
However, Byun discloses transparent barrier configured to divide a space having placed therein an image display apparatus configured to emit linearly polarized light from a display screen, the barrier having bonded thereto the polarizing film laminate (Fig. 1 barrier layer 130) via the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer so that an absorption axis of the polarizer is substantially parallel to a vibration direction of the linearly polarized light to be emitted by the image display apparatus (this limitation is an intended use and not positively recited limitations to limit the transparent barrier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a transparent barrier configured to divide a space having placed therein an image display apparatus configured to emit linearly polarized light from a display screen, the barrier having bonded thereto the polarizing film laminate via the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer so that an absorption axis of the polarizer is substantially parallel to a vibration direction of the linearly polarized light to be emitted by the image display apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10. Byun further discloses the barrier is a window, a wall, a door, or a partition (Fig. 1 barrier layer 130 para 91).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention recited does not include a product by process limitation, but rather an attempt to claim two different laminate films with different adhesive properties, wherein the different adhesive properties are obtained by different processing steps. Applicant proceeds to argue that the prior art of record fails to disclose the newly amended limitations, and that the process of wet bond is a characteristic of the claimed laminate product and that the process of dry attachment is also a characteristic of the claimed laminate product.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant may choose to describe the physical or structural properties of the invention by reciting details of its process, but the claimed process will not differentiate the invention from the prior art if the physical or structural properties of the prior art has been found to meet the claimed physical properties. Further, Applicant appears to recite two processes of bonding that are mutually exclusive (dry attachment vs wet bonding) each yielding different results for adhesive strength. The claimed invention can only be formed from one of the two process and thus possess only adhesive strength resulting from its corresponding process. As shown above the prior art of record discloses at least one of the adhesive strengths recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871