DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2020-007500 A) in view of Arihara (U.S. PGPub 2023/0378403).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a display body structural member, another display body structural member, and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer that bonds the display body structural member and the other display body structural member to each other (Fig. 2, [0107]-[0109], 21, 22, 11), wherein the display body structural member is a display module ([0115], 22 is either an optical element to be attached to 21, a display module, an optical element as part of a display module, or a laminate including a display module); the pressure sensitive adhesive layer includes at least one colored pressure sensitive adhesive layer, the colored pressure sensitive adhesive layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive that contains a colorant, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a lightness L* of 95 or less as defined by a CIE 1976 L*a*b* color system, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a total luminous transmittance of 3% or more (Fig. 1, 11, [0021]-[0022]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takahashi such that the pressure sensitive adhesive layer having a lightness L* of 90 or less.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach wherein a thermal conductivity is 0.1 W/m·K or more. Takahashi teaches wherein the colorant is present at a concentration of 0.1-4 mass% ([0039]) and wherein the colorant may be carbon black ([0034]). Applicant’s Specification teaches wherein this colorant and concentration meets the limitation of 0.1 W/m·K or more (Spec, [0084]-[0085], [0094]). Therefore the pressure sensitive adhesive sheet of Takashi satisfies the limitation of thermal conductivity of 0.1 W/m·K or more.
Takahashi further does not explicitly teach wherein the display body structural member is a backlight. Takahashi teaches wherein the display body structural member is a display module such as an LED module (see above, [0115]).
Arihara teaches a display body structural member, another display body structural member, and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer that bonds the two together, wherein the display body structural member is a backlight (Fig. 13, substrate 2, diffusion member 6, [0037]; adhesive layer 54, [0101]; [0006]-[0008], [0147], [0224]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Arihara with Takahashi such that the display body structural member is a backlight for the purpose of using the improved pressure-sensitive adhesive layer of Takahashi in the improved backlight display of Arihara (Takahashi, [0023]; Arihara, [0006]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a haze value of 0.1% or more and 80% or less (Takahashi, [0029]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches wherein the colorant is a black-based colorant and wherein the lightness L* is 10 or more, where the chromaticity a* is -10 to 10, and the chromaticity b* is -10 to 10 (Takahashi, [0026]-[0027]); the maximum color difference ΔE* from perfect black with lightness L* of 10 and chromaticity in those ranges is 17. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takahashi such that a color difference ΔE* between the pressure sensitive adhesive layer and perfect black is 90 or less as defined by the CIE 1976 L*a*b* color system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches wherein the peripheral component has a lightness L* of 5-90, chromaticity a* is -10 to 10, and chromaticity b* is -10 to 10 (Takahashi, [0024]); wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is chosen to match the peripheral component (Takahashi, [0031]); and wherein the lightness L* is 10 or more, where the chromaticity a* is -10 to 10, and the chromaticity b* is -10 to 10 (Takahashi, [0026]-[0027]); the maximum color difference ΔE* from perfect white with lightness L* of 10 and chromaticity in those ranges is 17. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takahashi such that a color difference ΔE* between the pressure sensitive adhesive layer and perfect white is 30 or less as defined by the CIE 1976 L*a*b* color system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches wherein at least one of the display body structural member and the other display body structural member has irregularities on a surface on a side to be bonded with the pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Arirara, Fig. 3, 3, [0112], [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches wherein the irregularities are those due to a plurality of light emitters provided on a substrate (Arirara, Fig. 3, [0112], [0037]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches a black peripheral portion (Takahashi, [0023]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara teaches a white peripheral portion (Takahashi, the surrounding components are a frame material [0023], [0029]-[0030]; [0024] the surrounding components may have a white color, see Spec at [0028] for definition of white peripheral portion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi and Arirara for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2020-007500 A) in view of Arihara (U.S. PGPub 2023/0378403) and Husemann (U.S. PGPub 2008/0286569).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takahashi and Arirara does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is a laminate of the at least one colored pressure sensitive adhesive layer and at least one colorless pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
Husemann teaches wherein a pressure sensitive adhesive layer is a laminate of at least one colored pressure sensitive adhesive layer and at least one colorless pressure sensitive adhesive layer ([0020]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Husemann with Takahashi such that the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is a laminate of the at least one colored pressure sensitive adhesive layer and at least one colorless pressure sensitive adhesive layer for the purpose of preventing discolorations and improving adhesion (Husemann, [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Takahashi, Arirara, and Husemann teaches wherein at least one of the display body structural member and the other display body structural member has irregularities on a surface on a side to be bonded with the pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Arirara, Fig. 3, 3, [0112], [0037]), and the colorless pressure sensitive adhesive layer is located in the pressure sensitive adhesive layer so as to provide a surface to be in contact with the irregularities of the at least one of the display body structural member and the other display body structural member (Husemann, [0021], [0025], colorless layer is outer layer used for adhesion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Takahashi, Arirara, and Husemann for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812