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 .
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.
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 20 had been previously inadvertently omitted but recites a substantially identical subject matter as claims 7, 13, 18 and it would have been and is rejected under the same rationale as claims 7, 13, 18. The ‘239 publication discloses “The b* of the absorbing layer is preferably 5 or less, more preferably 3 or less, and particularly preferably 1 or less.” Thus it clearly demonstrates a desire to minimize the b* value, and a claimed range of less than 0.4 or 0.5, absent any showing unexpected results associated with the claimed invention, is considered obvious in view of prior art.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020126239 A patent publication (cited in IDS) in view U.S. PGPub 2009/0267173 by Takahashi 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. Takahashi’s invention is drawn to a semiconductor device that can be used in display applications (as illustrated in Figs. 10, 11), comprising a transparent substrate (1101, Fig. 15), a blocking layer (1109) formed on the transparent substrate and an insulating layer (1104) on the blocking layer, wherein the blocking layer (1109, also referred to as a barrier layer) prevents diffusion of impurity elements and may be a silicon oxynitride film (see at least ¶[0241]); wherein the silicon oxynitride oxide film has nitrogen at 0.5 at.% to 15 at.% and a thickness of, for example, 50 nm (see at least ¶[0223]-[0225]). 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 a silicon oxynitride film having nitrogen in the range of 0.5-15 at.%, as suggested by Takahashi, for the purpose of a blocking or barrier layer for preventing diffusion of impurities from the glass substrate.
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)
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. USPub20160274421 discloses a display device with a silicon oxynitride protective insulating film.
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 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