DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) pending have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020126239 A patent publication (cited in IDS) in view of KR 20170112516 A patent publication and further in view of U.S. PGPub 20150368805 A1 by Landry-Coltrain et al.
Regarding claim 1, the ‘239 publication discloses a light guide plate for image display, comprising: a laminate (Fig. 11) that is provided with a resin base (2001), an anchor coat layer (adhesive layer 2026), and a barrier layer (2022A) in this order; and a hologram layer (2003), wherein the barrier layer is made of silicon oxynitride (silicon nitrogen oxide) as a main component, and wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of 150 nm or less (the first barrier layer 2002 and the second barrier layer 2004 (“barrier layer” in Table 2B) of this example are DLC films having a layer thickness of 40 nm).
The ‘239 publication does not specify a content percentage for nitrogen in the silicon oxynitride barrier layer. The ‘516 publication discloses a barrier film having applications in display devices (see Abstract) formed with a metal oxide or a metal oxynitride such as SiOx, AlOy, SiOaNb, AlOcNd, or ITO, at a thickness of about 40 nm, wherein the film has a nitrogen content of about 4.9 atomic% or 2 atomic% (see examples 1, 2). This composition for a barrier film that is less vulnerable to moisture and provides excellent optical performance, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention disclosed in the ‘239 publication, by using the composition for silicon oxynitride suggested in the ‘516 publication, including the nitrogen content/atomic%, for the same advantages.
With reference to an XPS method used to measure the nitrogen element formulation in the barrier layer, even 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. That is, the process has no bearing on the patentability of the product claim and is not given patentable weight. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
The ’239 publication further does not teach a b* value for the laminate. The “b*” value indicates the blue/yellow color accuracy and aging effects of a display substrate as is known in the art, wherein a more positive b* values indicates a more yellow appearance in the substrate. Landry-Coltrain teaches a substrate used in touch screen display having a b* value of between 032-2.42 (Table II), which makes the screen appear less yellow, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform routine experimentations to reduce the b* when possible and to determine a proper b* value range, e.g., by varying nitrogen content and/or film thickness, so as to avoid the less-desirable yellow appearance of a display screen.
Regarding claim 2, the ‘239 publication further discloses the resin base includes at least one resin selected from the group consisting of poly(meth)acryl-based resin, epoxy resin, cyclic polyolefin-based resin, and polycarbonate-based resin (¶[0082]).
Regarding claim 3, the ‘239 publication further discloses the anchor coat layer includes at least one resin selected from the group consisting of acryl-based resin, urethane-based resin, and polyester-based resin (¶[0277]).
Regarding claim 4, the ‘239 publication further discloses the laminate has hard coat layers on both surfaces of the resin base (hard coat layers 1011A and 1011B may be used on both sides of a resin base 1001 as illustrated in Fig. 7, for the purpose of protecting its surfaces since the resin base’s flatness and smoothness are critical to the function of the light guide plate as stated throughout the ‘239 publication).
Regarding claim 5 and the claimed range of a total ray transmittance of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the transmittance range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 6 and the claimed range of a haze of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the haze range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 7 and the claimed range of b* of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the b* range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure accurate color of the display.
Regarding claim 8 and the claimed range of the moist vapor permeability, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the permeability range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure an efficient barrier that prevents damage to the hologram layer.
Regarding claim 9, the ‘239 publication further discloses the anchor coat layer includes at least one resin selected from the group consisting of acryl-based resin, urethane-based resin, and polyester-based resin (¶[0277]).
Regarding claim 10, the ‘239 publication further discloses the laminate has hard coat layers on both surfaces of the resin base (hard coat layers 1011A and 1011B may be used on both sides of a resin base 1001 as illustrated in Fig. 7, for the purpose of protecting its surfaces since the resin base’s flatness and smoothness are critical to the function of the light guide plate as stated throughout the ‘239 publication).
Regarding claim 11 and the claimed range of a total ray transmittance of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the transmittance range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 12 and the claimed range of a haze of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the haze range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 13 and the claimed range of b* of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the b* range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure accurate color of the display.
Regarding claim 14 and the claimed range of the moist vapor permeability, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the permeability range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure an efficient barrier that prevents damage to the hologram layer.
Regarding claim 15, the ‘239 publication further discloses the laminate has hard coat layers on both surfaces of the resin base (hard coat layers 1011A and 1011B may be used on both sides of a resin base 1001 as illustrated in Fig. 7, for the purpose of protecting its surfaces since the resin base’s flatness and smoothness are critical to the function of the light guide plate as stated throughout the ‘239 publication).
Regarding claim 16 and the claimed range of a total ray transmittance of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the transmittance range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 17 and the claimed range of a haze of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the haze range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure brightness or luminance of the display.
Regarding claim 18 and the claimed range of b* of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the b* range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure accurate color of the display.
Regarding claim 19 and the claimed range of the moist vapor permeability, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, absent any disclosed criticality or unexpected results to the invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the permeability range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure an efficient barrier that prevents damage to the hologram layer.
Regarding claim 20 and the claimed range of b* of the laminate, since the invention as claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, they are presumed to function the same and a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the b* range meets industry standards and/or requirement of any intended application for the product as a matter of routine design choice or experimentations, so as to ensure accurate color of the display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR20070112117A discloses a desired b value of about -1 to about 5 for display elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE PENG whose telephone number is (571)272-2177. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 6PM.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on (571)270-1739. 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.
/CHARLIE Y PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights