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
The Amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-9 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the previously applied prior art does not disclose all of the limitations of newly amended claims 1 and 9, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9.
Applicant argues that by providing an ultraviolet absorbing layer having a light transmittance of 1% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm and the light diffusion film containing the weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, both liquefaction suppression and yellowing suppression are achieved, and that this effect is an unexpected result that could not have been predicted based on the disclosures of the applied references. Applicant further argues that the primary reference Kusama is premised on not adopting an ultraviolet absorbing layer, and that teaching reference Yamamoto’s ultraviolet absorbing layer is provided in a region other than the light diffusion control film and is not positioned on the external light incident side of the light diffusion control film. Additionally, applicant argues that Negishi does not recognize the problem of liquefaction in the film, and that as a result, when Kusama, Negishi, and Yamamoto are considered in combination, a person skilled in the art would not have recognized the novel issue of the claimed invention (suppression of liquefaction) and there would have been no motivation to arrive at the claimed invention. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kusama is premised on not adopting an ultraviolet absorbing layer, the examiner notes that the disclosure of Kusama, even considering ¶0021 and ¶0248-¶0250, is pointing out the preferred embodiment or solution to the problem of providing weather resistance. The description in ¶0248-¶0250 explains the benefits of having a laminate without an ultraviolet absorbing layer, however it does not state that one cannot also include an ultraviolet absorbing layer for the purpose of enhancing weather resistance. However, in the newly cited rejection, the examiner additionally includes Ito, which teaches a similar laminate comprising a light diffusion control film and an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film, wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film. It would have been obvious to include the ultraviolet absorbing layer of Ito in the laminate of Kusama for the purpose of inhibiting the light diffusion control film from being deteriorated by light (¶0090 of Ito) and for enhancing weather resistance (¶0247 of Kusama).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Yamamoto’s ultraviolet absorbing layer is provided in a region other than the light diffusion control film and is not positioned on the external light incident side of the light diffusion control film, the examiner points to Fig. 2 and ¶0093, which teaches the ultraviolet absorbing layer (41) is positioned on the external light incident side of the light diffusion control film (7, specifically layers 3, 4, 5, and 40 of 7 – 40 is a light diffusing portion, and layer 41 is on an external light incident side of 3, 4, 5, and 40; see Fig. 2). Although Yamamoto states in ¶0048 that the layer 41 is used as a mask during the production of the light diffusion part 40, this does not negate that the layer 41 is still present on an external light incident side in the laminate shown in Fig. 2. Further, Yamamoto is used to teach the transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer, not its location.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Negishi does not recognize the problem of liquefaction, and therefore there would have been no motivation to provide an ultraviolet absorbing layer and that it cannot be predicted that liquefaction could also be suppressed, the examiner notes that the weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton of Negishi is used for weather resistance/yellowing suppression. Applicant’s stated problem is to suppress liquefaction and yellowing of the light diffusion control film (¶0007 of the instant application), and Negishi discloses that weakly basic hindered amine compounds having carbonate skeletons suppresses yellowing. Further, a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton is just a subset of the hindered amine-based compound as taught by Kusama. Applicant’s issue of wanting to also suppress liquefaction does not change the fact that applicant also wants to suppress yellowing and Negishi teaches a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton to suppress yellowing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the light diffusion film to contain a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton for the purpose of suppressing yellowing.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the liquefaction suppression and yellowing suppression is an unexpected result due to the ultraviolet absorbing layer and the weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and therefore there would have been no motivation to combine the above references to arrive at the disclosed invention to suppress liquefaction, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While true that the cited references do not explicitly disclose suppressing liquefaction as an issue, they do disclose suppressing yellowing and weather resistance. Suppression of yellowing is enough of a motivation to combine a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton and an ultraviolet absorbing layer into the laminate disclosed by Kusama. The motivation to combine does not need to match applicant’s motivation to include these elements.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the non-statutory double patenting rejections are deficient/improper, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not provide sufficient reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the combination of features in amended claims 1 and 9 to be an obvious variation of the asserted claims of the asserted references and that the evidence of record fails to establish how the instantly claimed features would have been rendered obvious over the asserted claims of the asserted references. The examiner apologizes for not making the rejection clearer for applicant. The double patenting has been more precisely rejected below. However, to sum up the need for rejection, the claims create intersections of devices which reads on both of the devices claimed by the instant application and the devices claimed by ‘323 or ‘248 (please see Venn diagrams included below in the double patenting section). Therefore, if applicant were to sell ‘323 or ‘248, and the instant application were allowed, there would be sets of devices claimed by both ‘323 or ‘248 and the instant application, i.e. the “intersections” set forth below. To prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees, applicant could file a terminal disclaimer or amend the current claims to exclude such intersections.
Applicant argues that neither ‘323 nor ‘248 disclose a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton. However, both ‘323 and ‘248 disclose a hindered amine-based compound, of which a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton is a subset. Therefore, a device that reads on the narrower limitation of a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton would inherently read on the broader limitation of a hindered amine-based compound.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (US 20160018571 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 20070116916 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20150378069 A1), and further in view of Negishi et al. (US 20090111699 A1), hereinafter Kusama, Ito, Yamamoto, and Negishi, respectively.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kusama discloses a laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light (implicit from ¶0003), the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film (20; Fig. 3; ¶0104) having an internal structure in the film (20) (Fig. 3), the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions (22; Fig. 3; ¶0104) having a relatively high refractive index (¶0104) in a region (24; Fig. 3; ¶0104) having a relatively low refractive index (¶0104); and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer (laminating an ultraviolet absorbing layer on the light diffusion film, or ultraviolet absorber can be added to adhesive layer; ¶0248) located further on an external light incident side (adhesive layer can be laminated onto one or both surfaces of the light diffusion film; ¶0355) than the light diffusion control film (20) (¶0248, ¶0355),
wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film (20) (adhesive layer can be laminated over the entire surface of the light diffusion film; ¶0281), and
the light diffusion control film (20) containing a hindered amine-based compound (¶0023).
Additionally, Ito teaches a similar laminate comprising a light diffusion control film (2a; Fig. 2; ¶0034) and an ultraviolet absorbing layer (2b; Fig. 2; ¶0090) located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film (1) (Fig. 2; ¶0090), wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film (1) (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kusama to incorporate the ultraviolet absorbing layers of Ito for the purpose of inhibiting the light diffusion control film from being deteriorated by light (¶0090 of Ito) and for enhancing weather resistance (¶0247 of Kusama).
Neither Kusama nor Ito discloses the hindered amine-based compound is a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380 nm is 1% or less.
However, Yamamoto teaches a similar laminate comprising a light diffusion control film (7; Fig. 1; ¶0073) with an ultraviolet absorbing layer (41; Figs. 1, 4; ¶0106), wherein the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm is 1% or less (implicit from Fig. 4 and ¶0105-¶0106).
Further, although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm is 1% or less, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Kusama in view of Ito and further in view of Yamamoto discloses the laminate comprising the light diffusion control film and the ultraviolet absorbing layer, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to set the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm to be 1% or less for the purpose of achieving a favorable light diffusing property.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ultraviolet absorbing layer of Kusama in view of Ito to have a light transmittance of 1% or less at a wavelength of 380nm as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of achieving a favorable light diffusing property (¶0006-¶0007 of Yamamoto).
Yamamoto does not disclose the hindered amine-based compound is a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton.
However, Negishi discloses weakly basic hindered amine compounds having carbonate skeletons.
Applicant’s stated problem is to suppress yellowing of the light diffusion control film (i.e. to function as a light stabilizer). Negishi discloses that weakly basic hindered amine compounds having carbonate skeletons provided excellent long-term stabilization (¶0011) including reducing the amount of yellowing (¶0089; Table 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kusama in view of Ito and further in view of Yamamoto to include a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton as taught by Negishi as the hindered amine-based compound in the light diffusion film of Kusama for the purpose of long-term weather resistance and long-term stabilization, including reducing the amount of yellowing addressing applicant’s stated issue.
Regarding claim 3, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi discloses the laminate according to claim 1, including the hindered amine-based compound being weakly basic and having a carbonate skeleton, as set forth above. Kusama further discloses wherein a content of the hindered amine-based compound (¶0023) is 0.01 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less in the light diffusion control film (20) (¶0023).
Regarding claim 4, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi discloses the laminate according to claim 1, including the hindered amine-based compound being weakly basic and having a carbonate skeleton, as set forth above. Kusama further discloses wherein the light diffusion control film (20) is obtained from a composition that contains a high refractive index component (22), a low refractive index component (24) having a refractive index lower than that of the high refractive index component (22) (¶0104), and the hindered amine-based compound (¶0023).
Regarding claim 5, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi discloses the laminate according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kusama further discloses wherein the light diffusion control film (20) contains an ultraviolet absorber (¶0285).
Regarding claim 8, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi discloses the laminate according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kusama further discloses wherein the laminate is a display body using external light (implicit from ¶0003).
Regarding independent claim 9, Kusama discloses a light diffusion control film (20; Fig. 3; ¶0104) used in a laminate (¶0281) used under an environment irradiated with external light (¶0003), the laminate comprising the light diffusion control film (20) (¶0281) and an ultraviolet absorbing layer (ultraviolet absorber can be added to adhesive layer; ¶0248) located further on an external light incident side (adhesive layer can be laminated onto both surfaces of the light diffusion film; ¶0355) than the light diffusion control film (20) (¶0248, ¶0355),
wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film (20) (adhesive layer can be laminated over the entire surface of the light diffusion film; ¶0281),
the light diffusion control film (20) having an internal structure in the film (20) (Fig. 3; ¶0104), the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions (22; Fig. 3; ¶0104) having a relatively high refractive index (¶0104) in a region (24; Fig. 3; ¶0104) having a relatively low refractive index (¶0104),
the light diffusion control film (20) containing a hindered amine-based compound (¶0023).
Additionally, Ito teaches a similar laminate comprising a light diffusion control film (2a; Fig. 2; ¶0034) and an ultraviolet absorbing layer (2b; Fig. 2; ¶0090) located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film (1) (Fig. 2; ¶0090), wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film (1) (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kusama to incorporate the ultraviolet absorbing layers of Ito for the purpose of inhibiting the light diffusion control film from being deteriorated by light (¶0090 of Ito) and for enhancing weather resistance (¶0247 of Kusama).
Neither Kusama nor Ito discloses the hindered amine-based compound is a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380 nm is 1% or less.
However, Yamamoto teaches a similar laminate comprising a light diffusion control film (7; Fig. 1; ¶0073) with an ultraviolet absorbing layer (41; Figs. 1, 4; ¶0106), wherein the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm is 1% or less (implicit from Fig. 4 and ¶0105-¶0106).
Further, although Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm is 1% or less, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Kusama in view of Ito and further in view of Yamamoto discloses the laminate comprising the light diffusion control film and the ultraviolet absorbing layer, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to set the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380nm to be 1% or less for the purpose of achieving a favorable light diffusing property.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ultraviolet absorbing layer of Kusama in view of Ito to have a light transmittance of 1% or less at a wavelength of 380nm as taught by Yamamoto for the purpose of achieving a favorable light diffusing property (¶0006-¶0007 of Yamamoto).
Yamamoto does not disclose the hindered amine-based compound is a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton.
However, Negishi discloses weakly basic hindered amine compounds having carbonate skeletons.
Applicant’s stated problem is to suppress yellowing of the light diffusion control film (i.e. to function as a light stabilizer). Negishi discloses that weakly basic hindered amine compounds having carbonate skeletons provided excellent long-term stabilization (¶0011) including reducing the amount of yellowing (¶0089; Table 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kusama in view of Ito and further in view of Yamamoto to include a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton as taught by Negishi as the hindered amine-based compound in the light diffusion film of Kusama for the purpose of long-term weather resistance and long-term stabilization, including reducing the amount of yellowing addressing applicant’s stated issue.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama (US 20160018571 A1) in view of Ito (US 20070116916 A1), further in view of Yamamoto (US 20150378069 A1), further in view of Negishi (US 20090111699 A1), and further in view of Miyata et al. (US 20190033504 A1), hereinafter Miyata.
Regarding claim 6, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi disclose the laminate according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Kusama nor Negishi disclose the laminate is a window film.
However, Miyata discloses a laminate (101; Fig. 3; ¶0073) with a light diffusion control film (14; Fig. 4; ¶0073), wherein the laminate (101) is a window film (¶0186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the laminate of Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, and further in view of Negishi, as a window film as taught by Miyata for the purpose of allowing the window to display advertisements and other content (¶0003 of Miyata).
Regarding claim 7, Kusama in view of Ito, further in view of Yamamoto, further in view of Negishi, and further in view of Miyata discloses the laminate according to claim 6, as set forth above. Kusama further discloses it is comprising ultraviolet absorbing layers (ultraviolet absorber can be added to adhesive layer; ¶0248) on both sides of the light diffusion control film (20) (adhesive layer can be laminated onto both surfaces of the light diffusion film; ¶0355). Additionally, Ito also teaches the laminate comprises ultraviolet absorbing layers (2b) on both sides of the light diffusion control film (2a) (Fig. 2; ¶0090).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,467,323. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices claims in '323 and the instant application are coextensive such that there exist devices which could simultaneously be claimed under both.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,467,323
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and
the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380 nm is 1% or less.
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
wherein:
the light diffusion control film contains a polyfunctional monomer; and
the light diffusion control film has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less as measured at a maximum load of 2 mN by a nanoindentation method.
2. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains a hindered amine-based compound.
4. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer has a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm.
5. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains an ultraviolet absorber.
3. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains an ultraviolet absorber.
6. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a window film.
5. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a window film.
7. The laminate according to claim 6, comprising ultraviolet absorbing layers on both sides of the light diffusion control film.
6. The laminate according to claim 5, comprising ultraviolet absorbing layers on both sides of the light diffusion control film.
8. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a display body using external light.
7. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a display body using external light.
9. A light diffusion control film used in a laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising the light diffusion control film and an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index,
the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and
the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380 nm is 1% or less.
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
wherein:
the light diffusion control film contains a polyfunctional monomer; and
the light diffusion control film has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less as measured at a maximum load of 2 mN by a nanoindentation method.
2. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains a hindered amine-based compound.
4. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer has a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm.
[AltContent: textbox (Instant Application)][AltContent: textbox (11,467,323)][AltContent: textbox (the light diffusion control film contains a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton and a polyfunctional monomer, has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less; and the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film and has a transmittance of 1% or less at 380 nm)][AltContent: textbox (the light diffusion control film contains a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton; and the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film and has a transmittance of 1% or less at 380 nm)][AltContent: textbox (the light diffusion control film contains a polyfunctional monomer, has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less, contains a hindered amine-based compound; and the ultraviolet absorbing layer has a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
Venn diagram showing intersection of elements reading on ‘323 claims 1, 2, and 4 compared to instant application claims 1 or 9.
Regarding the differences between instant application claim 1 and claims 1, 2, and 4 of ‘323, instant application claim 1 has a further limitation of the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton and the ultraviolet absorbing layer covering the entire surface of the light diffusion control film and having a transmittance of 1% or less at 380 nm. Claims 1, 2, and 4 have narrower limitations of the light diffusion control film containing a polyfunctional monomer and having an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less as measured at a maximum load of 2 mN by a nanoindentation method. The instant application limitations of a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton and the ultraviolet absorbing layer having a transmittance of 1% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm are just narrower limitations that fall into the broader category of the hindered amine-based compound and the ultraviolet absorbing layer having a transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm, respectively. The limitation of the instant application wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film is a narrower limitation of the invention of ‘323, and the limitation of ‘323 wherein the light diffusion control film has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less as measured at a maximum load of 2 mN by a nanoindentation method is a narrower limitation of the invention of the instant application. These further narrower limitations of each are not mutually exclusive and the inventions of either the instant application or ‘323 can obviously include the other’s further limitations as well. There is obviously an intersection of laminates wherein the light diffusion control film contains a polyfunctional monomer and a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and has an indentation elastic modulus of 30 MPa or more and 1,000 MPa or less as measured at a maximum load of 2 mN by a nanoindentation method, and further wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film and has a transmittance of 1% or less at 380 nm. If the instant application was allowed there would be two patents reading on the laminates falling within the intersection seen in the Venn diagram above. There exist devices (such as seen in Fig. 2) that reads on both instant application claim 1 and claims 1, 2, and 4 of ‘323. This would open the application to unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome this rejection.
Regarding the differences between instant application claim 9 and claims 1, 2, and 4 of ‘323, instant application claim 9 and claims 1, 2, and 4 have the same differences as above with instant application claim 1. None of the narrow limitations of each are mutually exclusive and there exist devices (such as seen in Fig. 2) that reads on both instant application claim 1 and claims 1, 2, and 4 of ‘323.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,630,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices claims in '248 and the instant application are coextensive such that there exist devices which could simultaneously be claimed under both.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,630,248
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton, and
the light transmittance of the ultraviolet absorbing layer at a wavelength of 380 nm is 1% or less.
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film containing a hindered amine-based compound, and
the ultraviolet absorbing layer having a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm.
3. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein a content of the weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having the carbonate skeleton is 0.01 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less in the light diffusion control film.
2. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein a content of the hindered amine-based compound in the light diffusion control film is 0.01 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less.
4. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film is obtained from a composition that contains a high refractive index component, a low refractive index component having a refractive index lower than that of the high refractive index component, and the weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having the carbonate skeleton.
3. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film is obtained from a composition that contains a high refractive index component, a low refractive index component having a refractive index lower than that of the high refractive index component, and the hindered amine-based compound.
5. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains an ultraviolet absorber.
4. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains an ultraviolet absorber.
6. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a window film.
5. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a window film.
7. The laminate according to claim 6, comprising ultraviolet absorbing layers on both sides of the light diffusion control film.
6. The laminate according to claim 5, comprising ultraviolet absorbing layers on both sides of the light diffusion control film.
8. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a display body using external light.
7. The laminate according to claim 1, wherein the laminate is a display body using external light.
9. A light diffusion control film used in a laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising the light diffusion control film and an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index,
the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton.
1. A laminate used under an environment irradiated with external light, the laminate comprising:
a light diffusion control film having an internal structure in the film, the internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index; and
an ultraviolet absorbing layer located further on an external light incident side than the light diffusion control film,
the light diffusion control film containing a hindered amine-based compound, and
the ultraviolet absorbing layer having a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm.
[AltContent: textbox (the light diffusion control film contains a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton; and the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film and has a light transmittance of 1% or less at 380 nm)][AltContent: textbox (11,630,248)][AltContent: textbox (Instant Application)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (the light diffusion control film contains a hindered amine-based compound; and the ultraviolet absorbing layer has a light transmittance of 30% or less at 380 nm)]
Venn diagram showing intersection of elements reading on ‘248 claim 1 compared to instant application claims 1 or 9.
Regarding the differences between instant application claim 1 and claim 1 of ‘248, instant application claim 1 has a further limitation of the light diffusion control film containing a weakly basic hindered amine-based compound having a carbonate skeleton and the ultraviolet absorbing layer having a transmittance of 1% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm. These limitations fall into a narrower subset of the limitations of ‘248 claim 1, wherein the light diffusion control film contains a hindered amine-based compound and the ultraviolet absorbing layer has a light transmittance of 30% or less at a wavelength of 380 nm, respectively. The limitation of the instant application wherein the ultraviolet absorbing layer covers an entire surface of the light diffusion control film is a narrower limitation of the invention of ‘248. Therefore, there is a subset of devices (such as seen in Fig. 2) that would satisfy both the instant application and ‘248, and any invention that reads on the instant application would inherently read on ‘248. If the instant application was allowed there would be two patents reading on the laminates falling within the inner circle seen in the Venn diagram above. This would open the application to unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome this rejection.
Regarding the differences between instant application claim 9 and claim 1 of ‘248, instant application claim 9 and claim 1 have the same differences as above with instant application claim 1. None of the narrow limitations of each are mutually exclusive and there exist devices (such as seen in Fig. 2) that reads on both instant application claim 1 and claims 1, 2, and 4 of ‘248.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 December 12th, 2025
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872