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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-26 are pending in the current application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0154] on Page 75 recites “For example, as shown in Figure 4, the mage display apparatus.” This contains a typographical error, and should be amended to instead recite “For example, as shown in Figure 4, the image display apparatus.” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figure 2A is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because it fails to show reference characters in the sequence as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). It appears that reference characters 21 and 23 should likely pertain to adhesive layers instead of a phase difference film and a polarizer; 22 should likely pertain to a polarizer instead of an adhesive layer; and 24 should likely pertain to a phase difference film instead of an adhesive layer.
Figure 2B is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: 36 is depicted in Figure 2B, however, 36 is not defined or described within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 12, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 13, and 23 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “a repeat unit represented by any selected from the group consisting of the following general formulas (4), (5), and (6): ….” Alternatively, claim 4 could be amended to recite “a repeat unit represented by any of the following general formulas (4), (5), or (6): …” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as instead reciting “has any one or more selected from the group consisting of hard coat, …, and anti-fingerprint effects.” Alternatively, claim 13 could be amended to recite “has any one or more of hard coat, …, or anti-fingerprint effects” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 23 is interpreted as instead reciting “the conductive film comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), …, and a carbon-based material.” Alternatively, claim 23 could be amended to recite “the conductive film comprises at least one of indium tin oxide (ITO), …, or a carbon-based material” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
Correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if one specific “surface,” every surface, or some other combination of surfaces of the polarizer protective film should receive the claimed surface treatment layer. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as instead reciting “a surface.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the surface treatment layer." Claim 13 depends from claim 1, where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. It is unclear if the surface treatment layer is referring to a new layer or a previously recited layer. Claim 12, however, recites “a surface treatment layer.” For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as instead reciting “The polarizer protective film according to claim 12, wherein the surface treatment layer ….”
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 1-5, 8-14, 16, 17, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinno et al. (WO 2014162977 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Ota et al. (WO 20200230597 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Jinno teaches a protective film laminate 20 for a polarizing plate 10 comprising a first acrylic resin layer 21, a polycarbonate resin layer 25, and a second acrylic resin layer 22 laminated together (Jinno, [0001], [0008]-[0021], Fig 2). Jinno teaches the protective film laminate is extruded and sandwiched between two metal rollers (Jinno, [0047]-[0048]). Jinno does not explicitly disclose a formation method with drawing. “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. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113). The protective film laminate of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or only slightly different than the claimed product-by-process structure formed by drawing, and therefore, absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the drawing process limitation does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. Jinno teaches a thickness ratio of the polycarbonate resin layer 25 is 2-60% of the total protective film laminate 20 thickness (Jinno, [0010], [0050]). Jinno’s thickness ratio overlaps the claimed ratio of 1-30%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Jinno teaches the in-plane retardation Ro of the protective film laminate 20 is 100 nm or less at a wavelength of 590 nm (Jinno, [0014], [0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
239
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jinno – Figure 2
Jinno remains silent regarding the polycarbonate layer 25 comprising a fluorene-based polyester resin having Rth(589) of -50 nm to 50 nm and Ro(550) of 0 nm to 50 nm.
Ota, however, teaches a protective film for a polarizing plate comprising a polymer alloy resin containing polycarbonate and a fluorene polyester resin having a fluorene-9-yl backbone, where the protective film comprising the polymer alloy exhibits Rth(589) of 0 nm to 150 nm and Ro(550) of 0 nm to 10 nm (Ota, Abstract, [0001], [0012]-[0039]). Ota teaches the protective film is stretched (drawn) for thinning and strength improvement, and can be laminated with other films (Ota, [0190]-[0191]). Ota’s Rth(589) range overlaps the claimed range of -50 nm to 50 nm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Ota’s Ro(550) range is encompassed within the claimed range of 0 nm to 50 nm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Since Jinno and Ota both disclose protective films comprising polycarbonate resin for polarizing plates and Ota suggests laminating the polymer alloy resin film with other films, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Ota’s polymer alloy resin film as the polycarbonate layer 25 in Jinno’s protective film laminate 20 to yield a polarizing plate that exhibits low birefringence, suppresses rainbow unevenness and light leakage, low moisture permeability, high mechanical strength, excellent heat resistance, and excellent durability as taught by Ota (Ota, [0011]-[0012], [0034]-[0035], [0037]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jinno teaches the polymer alloy resin containing polycarbonate and a fluorene polyester resin having a fluorene-9-yl backbone, where the polyester is a copolyester resin comprising repeat units represented by formulas (A1)-(B2) that render obvious general formulas (4), (5), and (6) of claim 2 (Ota, [0014]-[0028], formulas (A1)-(B2)).
PNG
media_image2.png
137
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
89
171
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
38
154
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
77
223
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ota – Formula (A1), (B1-1), (A2), (B2)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jinno teaches the protective film for a polarizing plate comprises the polymer alloy resin containing polycarbonate and the fluorene polyester resin having a fluorene-9-yl backbone (Ota, Abstract, [0001], [0012]-[0039]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Jinno teaches the first acrylic resin layer 21 and the second acrylic resin layer 22 are formed from acrylic resin having 50 wt% or more of an alkyl acrylate with 4-8 carbon atoms and 50 wt% or less of other monomers such as methyl methacrylate, where these repeat units satisfy formula (4) of claim 4 (Jinno, [0020]-[0021], [0028]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate 20 comprising the first acrylic resin layer 21, the polycarbonate alloy resin layer 25, and the second acrylic resin layer 22 are laminated together without any intervening adhesive layers (Jinno, Abstract, [0001], [0008]-[0021], [0047]-[0051], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate 20 comprising the first acrylic resin layer 21, the polycarbonate alloy resin layer 25, and the second acrylic resin layer 22 are laminated together, where the first acrylic resin layer 21 is an outermost layer and the laminate has 3 layers (Jinno, Abstract, [0001], [0008]-[0021], [0047]-[0051], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Jinno teaches the polymer alloy resin containing polycarbonate and the fluorene polyester resin also comprises an ultraviolet absorber (Ota, [0180]-[0181]; Jinno, [0039]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate 20 can utilize ultraviolet absorbers to block wavelengths of at 380 nm to a degree of 10% or less (Ota, [0181]). Modified Jinno’s range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate exhibits high light transmittance, high transparency, low internal haze, and low birefringence properties; and therefore, is considered to render obvious the claimed total light transmittance range of 85% or more (Jinno, [0053]-[0054]; Ota, [0037]; MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate 20 has a surface treatment (Jinno, [0048], [0085]; Ota, [0191]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jinno teaches the surface treatment includes functional layers such as hard coating layers (Jinno, [0048], [0085]; Ota, [0191]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Jinno teaches a polarizing plate comprising the protective film laminate 20 according to claim 1 above and a polarizer formed from a polyvinyl alcohol-based resin that are laminated together through an ultraviolet curable adhesive (Jinno, [0086]-[0104]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Jinno teaches an image display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate comprising the protective film laminate 20 according to claim 1 above (Jinno, [0001], [0104]; Ota, [0191], [0219]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Jinno teaches the image display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate comprising the protective film laminate 20 according to claim 1 above can also comprise a touch panel (touch sensor) (Ota, [0219]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Jinno teaches the image display apparatus is used for an in-car navigation system (Jinno, [0001]-[0002]; Ota, [0219]).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Jinno teaches the image display apparatus is used for an information processing apparatus (Jinno, [0001]-[0002]; Ota, [0219]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinno et al. (WO 2014162977 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Ota et al. (WO 20200230597 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada et al. (JP 2020086214 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate for a polarizing plate as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Jinno teaches the first acrylic resin layer and second acrylic resin layer are formed of compositions that comprise acrylic resins, other polymer particles, and additional additives (Jinno, [0001], [0008]-[0010], [0020]-[0022], [0034]-[0038]).
Modified Jinno remains silent regarding the first acrylic resin layer and second acrylic resin layer being formed from a polymer alloy of acrylic resin and a polyester or a polycarbonate resin (required by claim 6), where the polyester or polycarbonate resins are fluorene-based resins (required by claim 7).
Okada, however, teaches a laminated optical film having low in-plane retardation for polarizing plates comprising a layer A formed of a drawn polymer film made of a blend of a resin having a positive birefringence and a resin having a negative birefringence a layer B comprising a polycarbonate resin (Okada, Abstract, Pgs 4-8, 14). Okada teaches the resin having a positive birefringence is a polycarbonate resin that is a fluorene-based polycarbonate resin and the resin having a negative birefringence is an acrylic resin (Okada, Pgs 5-7).
Since modified Jinno and Okada both disclose protective films for polarizing plates having low in-plane retardation (Ro) formed by drawing/stretching of a polycarbonate layer and an acrylic layer and modified Jinno suggests including additional polymer particles and additives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Okada’s polymer blend/alloy of fluorene-based polycarbonate and acrylic resins to form modified Jinno’s first and/or second acrylic resin layers to yield a protective film that exhibits improved visibility when observed from oblique directions, does not require complicated manufacturing conditions, exhibits excellent mass productivity, and has excellent wavelength dispersion as taught by Okada (Okada, Abstract, Pgs 2-5, 14).
Claims 11 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinno et al. (WO 2014162977 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Ota et al. (WO 20200230597 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Fuchida et al. (WO 2021182384 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate for a polarizing plate as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate 20 can utilize ultraviolet absorbers to block wavelengths of at 380 nm to a degree of 10% or less (Ota, [0181]). Modified Jinno’s range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate exhibits high light transmittance, high transparency, low internal haze, and low birefringence properties; and therefore, is considered to render obvious the claimed total light transmittance range of 85% or more (Jinno, [0053]-[0054]; Ota, [0037]; MPEP 2143).
Modified Jinno remains silent regarding light transmittance of 85% or more.
Fuchida, however, teaches an optical display comprising an optical multilayer structure including a protective resin layer made of an acrylic resin and a polycarbonate resin having Ro(550) of 10 nm or less and Rth(550) of 30 nm or less (Fuchida, [0026]-[0063], [0095]-[0098]). Fuchida teaches the protective resin layer has a total light transmittance of 85% or more (Fuchida, [0052]). Fuchida’s total light transmittance range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Since modified Jinno and Fuchida both disclose protective films having low Ro(550) formed from acrylic resins for polarizing plates and modified Jinno teaches a protective film laminate exhibiting high light transmittance, high transparency, low internal haze, and low birefringence properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured modified Jinno’s protective film laminate according to Fuchida’s guidance to have total light transmittance of 85% or more to yield a protective film that exhibits reduced in-plane phase difference, suppressed fluctuations of in-plane phase difference after bending, sufficient impact resistance, and high total light transmittance as taught by Fuchida (Fuchida, [0033], [0051]-[0053]; MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Jinno teaches the protective film laminate for a polarizing plate as discussed above for claims 1 and 14. Modified Jinno teaches the image display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate comprising the protective film laminate 20 according to claim 1 above can also comprise a touch panel (Ota, [0219]).
Modified Jinno remains silent regarding the details of a touch sensor.
Fuchida, however, teaches an optical display comprising an optical multilayer structure including a protective resin layer made of an acrylic resin and a polycarbonate resin having Ro(550) of 10 nm or less and Rth(550) of 30 nm or less, and also comprising a touch panel-type input display device (i.e., a touch sensor) (Fuchida, [0026]-[0063], [0095]-[0098], [0117]-[0125]).
Since modified Jinno and Fuchida both disclose protective films having low Ro(550) formed from acrylic resins for polarizing plates and modified Jinno suggest a device comprising a touch panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured modified Jinno’s image display apparatus to include Fuchida’s touch panel-type input display device to yield an image display that allows for capacitive touch-input functionality and possesses concealed conductive components as taught by Fuchida (Fuchida, [0118]-[0125]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Jinno teaches the touch panel-type input display device is disposed on a display cell element (Fuchida, [00], Fig 2; Jinno, [0104]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Jinno teaches the touch panel-type input display device is a capacitive touch device comprising a conductive film, where the details are provided in JP 2017-102443, 2014-113705, and 2014-219667 as discussed by Fuchida (Fuchida, [0118]-[0125]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Jinno teaches the conductive film is embedded within the resin of an adhesive layer that can be formed from polyester-based adhesive (Fuchida, [0110]-[0125]).
Regarding Claims 21, 22, and 23, modified Jinno teaches the conductive film comprises a plurality of metal thin wires made of silver or copper, and can also comprise an indium-tin oxide composite (Fuchida, [0120]-[0123]).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Jinno teaches the touch panel-type input display device is a bendable and foldable display device that has a changeable shape (Fuchida, [0026]-[0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the invention of claim 15. In view of the foregoing, the scope of claim 15 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights