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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim 7 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, the applicant argues that the teaching of Heo at paragraph [0064] is directed to the surface hardness of the product with the hard coating layer formed on the base layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph [0064], Heo states that “the base layer may have a surface hardness of 5B or higher, 1H or higher, 2H or higher, or 3H or higher, which may be a surface hardness at the time of hard coating treatment.” Thus, it is clearly the base layer with this surface hardness. Further, in paragraphs [0106]-[0108], while discussing how the hard coating layer enhances the hardness of the surface of the protection film, Heo teaches that with the hard coating layer the protection film may have a surface hardness of 2H or higher. It would be contradictory to first state that the hard coat layer provides a surface hardness of 5B or higher and then state that the hard coat layer provides a surface hardness of 2H or higher. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the first recitation of surface hardness is for the base layer alone and the second recitation of surface hardness is for the base layer with the hard coating layer.
On page 6, the applicant argues that there is no indication in Heo that its product is a stretched product having the features recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. With Heo asserting a surface hardness for the base layer of 3H or higher, and the base layer being a stretched film (see paragraph [0099]), the base layer is understood to meet the claimed limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 in view of Heo, of record, is hereby maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method for selecting an optical plastic film, the method comprising selecting the optical plastic film satisfying the following determination condition: in a region within a depth of 20 μm from the first surface in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, an average of an erosion rate is 1.4 μm/g or more, as generally set forth in claim 7, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 7.
The prior art does not recognize erosion rate as a result effective variable for optical plastic films. As such, it would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply erosion rate as a determination condition in selecting an optical plastic film.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2022/0276411) of record (hereafter Heo).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses an optical plastic film comprising a first surface and a second surface that is a surface on a side opposite to the first surface (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0027] and [0093], where base layer 110 is an optical plastic film that comprises a polyester resin), wherein the plastic film is a stretched plastic film (see at least paragraph [0099]), the plastic film has an in-plane phase difference of 550 nm or more and 1,450 nm or less (see at least paragraph [0084], where the in-plane phase difference can be 600 nm or less), the plastic film has a phase difference in a thickness direction of 8,000 nm or less (see at least paragraph [0086], where the thickness direction phase difference is 4,000 nm or more), wherein the film has a thickness of 20 to 60 μm (see at least paragraph [0055]) and a surface hardness of 3H or higher (see at least paragraph [0064]).
Heo does not specifically disclose that, in a region within a depth of 20 m from the first surface in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, an average of an erosion rate is 1.4 μm/g or more.
The examiner notes that Heo and the present specification both disclose the use of polyethylene terephthalate for the plastic film (see paragraph [0097] of Heo and paragraph [0065] of the present specification).
However, given the use of similar materials and the desire for improving the hardness of the plastic film (see at least paragraph [0064] of Heo), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the optical plastic film disclosed by Heo would have the same or similar physical characteristics such as erosion rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical plastic film of Heo so that, in a region within a depth of 20 μm from the first surface in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, an average of an erosion rate is 1.4 μm/g or more for the purpose of expecting an optical plastic film comprising the same or similar materials to result in the same or similar physical characteristics such as erosion rate and further to optimize the hardness of the optical plastic film.
Regarding claim 2, Heo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Heo does not specifically disclose that, in the region within a depth of 20 μm from the first surface in the direction from the first surface to the second surface, a ratio of variation of the erosion rate to the average of the erosion rate is 0.100 or less.
However, given the use of similar materials and the desire for improving the hardness of the plastic film (see at least paragraph [0064] of Heo), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the optical plastic film disclosed by Heo would have the same or similar physical characteristics such as variation of erosion rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical plastic film of Heo so that, in the region within a depth of 20 μm from the first surface in the direction from the first surface to the second surface, a ratio of variation of the erosion rate to the average of the erosion rate is 0.100 or less for the purpose of expecting an optical plastic film comprising the same material to result in the same or similar physical characteristics such as variation of erosion rate and further to optimize the hardness of the optical plastic film.
Regarding claim 3, Heo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Heo also discloses that when the in-plane phase difference of the plastic film is defined as Re and the phase difference in the thickness direction is defined as Rth, Re/Rth is 0.15 or less (see at least paragraphs [0084] and [0086], where Re is 600 nm or less and Rth is 4,000 nm or more, thus Re/Rth is about 0.15).
Regarding claim 5, Heo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Heo also discloses an image display device comprising a display element and a plastic film disposed on a light emitting surface side of the display element, wherein the plastic film is the optical plastic film according to claim 1 (see at least Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraphs [0157]-[0160]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2022/0276411) of record (hereafter Heo) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Yonemoto et al. (US 2016/0018578) of record (hereafter Yonemoto).
Regarding claim 4, Heo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Heo also discloses that the optical plastic film is a protection film (see at least the abstract).
Heo does not specifically disclose a polarization plate comprising: a polarizer; a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer; and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first transparent protective plate and the second transparent protective plate is the optical plastic film according to claim 1.
However, Yonemoto teaches a polarization plate comprising a polarizer, a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer, and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0035], where 3 is a polarizer, and 1 and 2 are protective films disposed on opposite sides of the polarizer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical plastic film of Heo to include the teachings of Yonemoto so that it is part of a polarization plate comprising: a polarizer; a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer; and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer, wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first transparent protective plate and the second transparent protective plate is the optical plastic film according to claim 1 for the purpose of using the optical plastic film as a protection film in a known device.
Regarding claim 6, Heo discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Heo also discloses that the optical plastic film is a protection film (see at least the abstract).
Heo does not specifically disclose a polarizer between the display element and the plastic film.
However, Yonemoto teaches an image display device comprising a polarizer between a display element and a protective film (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0035], [0039] and [0223], where polarization plate 20 includes protection film 1, with polarizer 3 being disposed between the display and the protection film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image display device of Heo to include the teachings of Yonemoto so that the device comprises a polarizer between the display element and the plastic film in order to facilitate the operation of a display device such as a liquid crystal display (see at least paragraph [0227] of Yonemoto).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights