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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 10/2/2025. Claims 9 and 11-14 have been amended. Claim 17 is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection also utilizing Suwa et al. (US 2012/0328891) to demonstrate the obviousness of printing in similar contexts.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 2006/0014085) in view of JP2018104602 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided) and Suwa et al. (US 2012/0328891).
Regarding Claims 9-10 and 15-17, Nakajima et al. teaches a lamination including an adhesive layer including acicular filler providing optical function and a transparent adhesive layer (See page 3, paragraph [0043]), wherein the adhesives layers are made from acrylic monomers that would implicitly (or at least obviously) produce acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives (See page 4, paragraph [0048]-[0049], and note the monomers taught are similar to those taught in the instant specification and well-known to produce tacky acrylic PSAs, which are common for the applications disclosed). As such, Nakajima et al. teaches an optically functional pressure sensitive adhesive layer of a composite pressure sensitive adhesive layer, the composite pressure sensitive adhesive layer comprising the optically functional pressure sensitive adhesive layer and a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive layer that does not have an optical function of the optically functional pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
Nakajima et al. teaches the acicular filler if configured for light diffusion and thus is designed to lower straight forward transmittance in the visible range, including 550 nm, i.e. green visible light, and teaches similar filler materials in similar sizes as in the instant invention with a wide range of potential loadings for the optically functional layer (See page 4, paragraph [0054]-[0056] and page 5, paragraph [0062], teaching a wide range of loadings, i.e. 0.1 to 50 mass percent, of acicular filler designed to induce light diffusion and thus reduce straight forward transmittance in the visible range; Examiner submits the wide range implies or at least renders obvious transmittance below 90% for visible light at 550 nm).
Nakajima et al. further teaches the adhesive is utilized in a liquid crystal device (LCD) by first being coated on separators and then laminated to various substances including those well-known to be rigid and having irregular surfaces such as light guiding plates and prisms, which are known to have irregular surfaces to bend light (See pages 6-7, paragraphs [0075]-[0081] and [0088]-[0089], and note the irregularity surfaces would implicitly face the same direction and thus at least one would face the adhesive).
Nakajima et al. is silent as to a specific bonding process utilizing the transparent adhesive and light diffusion adhesive together. However, JP2018104602 teaches a specific advantage to using a transparent PSA [22] layer with a light diffusion PSA [21] layer when bonding rigid laminates in LCD manufacture in order to reduce stress in the optically functional layer (See pages 9-15 [0021]-[0033], the layer of transparent adhesive will reduce stress in the functional adhesive layer when laminating to hard, i.e. rigid laminates in LCD manufacture). JP2018104602 teaches bonding the optically functional pressure sensitive adhesive layer [21] of a composite pressure sensitive adhesive layer to one of the two rigid plates, the composite pressure sensitive adhesive layer comprising the optically functional pressure sensitive adhesive layer [21] and then bonding the transparent pressure sensitive adhesive layer [22] of the composite pressure sensitive adhesive layer and the other of the two rigid plates so as to allow the transparent pressure sensitive adhesive layer [22] to act as a cushion that reduces unevenness that affects the proper diffusion in the laminate (See pages 51-54, paragraphs [0109]-[0117], teaching removing the release sheet [3a] from the light diffusion PSA first bonding the light diffusion PSA [21] to the rigid LCD laminate [5a], and then peeling the release sheet [3b] from the transparent PSA [22] and laminating the other rigid LCD laminate [5b] to adhesive [22] in order for the transparent PSA to act as a cushion that eliminates unevenness).
Thus, when laminating to rigid LCD laminates in any LCD arrangement having any surface irregularities such as may be present in Nakajima et al. or other standard LCD manufacture adhesive laminating, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the light diffusion PSA and transparent PSA together, and laminate the light diffusion PSA layer first, and then the transparent PSA layer second. Doing so would have predictably allowed the transparent layer to act as a cushion the reduces stress on the light diffusion PSA and thus reduces disruptions and unevenness that affect the desired light diffusion to be implemented by the oriented acicular filler therein. Note any such laminate for a display are display body structural members.
Neither Nakajima et al. nor JP2018104602 explicitly teaches the irregularities compensated for by the advantageous adhesive and laminating method in JP2018104602 are formed by printing. However, it would have been apparent that the method and adhesive in JP2018104602 would have predictably reduce uneven lamination and minimized optical disturbance in any known adhesive lamination of rigid layers for forming LCD displays. Further, printing, such as in a 10 micron layer, on the interior surface of similar rigid LCD layers is well-established in LCD manufacturing methods of the prior art, including layers undergoing essentially identical adhesive lamination processes, such as in Nakajima et al. nor JP2018104602, wherein the provides a desirable decorative effect and/or light shielding effect known in adhesive laminated LCD layers (See, for example, Suwa et al., page 1, paragraphs [0004] and [0010], page 7, paragraphs [0059]-[0063], teaching printing [6] as a source of surface regularities in similar LCD panel manufacture occurring via adhesive lamination of panel layers, such as in Nakajima et al. and JP2018104602; the printing taught as being established in rigid layers to be adhesive laminated in order to provide decorative effect and/or light shielding). Printing the layers in Nakajima et al. and JP2018104602, or like layers in related LCD manufacturing, thus would have predictably been desirable so as to provide decorative effect and light shielding as is well-known in LCD manufacture in the prior art.
The laminating process and adhesive layers taught in JP2018104602 would have predictably been suitable and advantageous for compensating for such irregularities formed by such printing since JP2018104602 explicitly teaches the adhesive and laminating process compensate for unevenness as may result during adhesive laminating in LCD manufacture by providing a cushion the reduces disturbance. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to print a 10-micron layer border layer in Nakajima et al. on an LCD layer to be laminated, and enhance lamination quality via the lamination method and adhesive of JP2018104602 having duel transparent and optical layers. Doing so would have predictably enabled known advantages of printing in similar LCD layers, such as providing decorative effect and light shielding, while ensuring minimal stress during lamination, thus reducing unevenness even during higher lamination pressures. Such a method would predictably result in both decorative effect and light shielding in the LCD layers while also ensuring an even lamination with minimal optical disturbance. Such a 10-micron border layer is considered printed irregularities as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, as described above, Nakajima et al. teaches a wide range of loadings of filler indicating a wide range of diffusion/haze is suitable on the optically functional adhesive. Further, in similar LCD applications, JP2018104602 teaches the light diffusion may desirably have a haze of 80-99% (See page 3, paragraph [0006]). Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an amount of filler to implement a haze in the claimed range because doing so is known to be suitable for LCD applicable application to produce a desirable image.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Nakajima et al. teaches a display and thus suggest luminance transmittance should remain fairly high for brightness of the image. Further, acicular filler causes diffusion but would have been expected to have minimal effect of luminance and this, without coloring, luminance transmission would have been expected to have been close to 100%. Nakajima et al. teaches a coloring dye (i.e. for coloring optical function), which known for tinting displays to reduce luminance as desired. Where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. utilization of a coloring/tinting dye that as a dye, inherently absorbs light) are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use routine experimentation to arrive at the best composition of additive coloring/tinting dye for the desired maximum luminance of the display, such as 5-90% as claimed, in order to meet customer specifications or consumer demands for brightness in the LCD.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al., JP2018104602, and Suwa et al. as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2006/0262258).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakajima et al., JP2018104602, and Suwa et al. teach the method of Claim 9 as described above. Nakajima et al. further teaches a coloring dye may also be added to the filler-containing layer, thus implanting color as an optical function. As also described above, Nakajima et al. teaches a wide range of potential loadings of the filler implement the diffusion/haze imparted by the optical adhesive layer, thus indicating a wide haze range is suitable (See page 4, paragraph [0054]-[0056] and page 5, paragraph [0062], teaching a wide range of loadings, i.e. 0.1 to 50 mass percent, of acicular filler designed to induce light diffusion indicating a wide range of hazes implemented via said filler). Further, in related LCD applications, it is known diffusing adhesives utilizing similar diffusion filler may have a wide range of haze values, such as 10% to 85% (See, for example, Wang et al., page 11, paragraph [0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement of haze of 10-30% via the diffusion adhesive layer. Such hazes are known to be suitable for similar adhesive layers in similar applications and thus would have predicably been suitable in Nakajimia et al. in order to produce the desired optical properties in the device.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights