DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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.
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) 1, 7-11, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0028677, “Lee”) in view of Liu et al. (US 2013/0078462, “Liu”) and further in view of Akutagawa et al. (PCT/JP2019/045877, for which English language equivalent US 2021/0286107 is used as the citation copy, hereafter “Akutagawa”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Lee teaches an optical laminate for use as a cover window in a display device ([0032], [0002] – [0008] and, e.g., [0121], [0122], describing internal display components) having a substate layer ([0032], corresponding to the claimed base layer) having a window coating layer thereon ([0032], [0035], layer 120 corresponding to the claimed hard coat layer) and having an additional layer underneath the substrate layer ([0068], back coating layer corresponding to the claimed elastic layer). Lee additionally teaches that the substrate layer may comprise a polyester based resin (polyester resin, [0034]). Lee teaches that the display is a flexible or foldable display ([0006], [0034]
PNG
media_image1.png
182
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to teach that the back coating layer comprises a polyether block amide, however the inclusion of such a material is well known in the prior art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of transparent laminate films for use in display devices ([0003], [0004]), Liu teaches to include a polyether block amide layer or component in order to introduce antistatic properties to a film or laminate (see e.g., [0044], [0045], [0010]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the layer 130 of Lee out of, or otherwise to have included, a polyether block amide so as to introduce antistatic properties to the laminate (Liu, e.g., [0044], [0045], [0010]). Lee fails to specifically the claimed recovery percentage. However, in the same field of endeavor of hard coat films ([0003] – [0005]), Akutagawa teaches a similar recover rate percentage of from 84 to 99% ([0015]) in order to provide a film having both good deformation recovery and high hardness (see, Akutagawa, e.g., [0074]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted the above recovery characteristics for the film of modified Lee, including adapting so as to have high recoveries consistent with the claimed testing parameters, in order to provide a film having both good deformation recovery and high hardness (see, Akutagawa, e.g., [0074]).
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 18, Lee additionally teaches that the base film may comprise a polyester based resin (polyester resin, [0034]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lee additionally teaches that the laminate may have a Martens hardness of from 150 N/mm to 300 N/mm and an elastic modulus on the range of from 2000 to 4000 MPa ([0036]).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Lee additionally teaches that the window coating layer may comprise, for example, an acrylate based compound (e.g., [0041], wherein the R1 group may be an acrylic or epoxy group).
Regarding claim 16, Lee additionally teaches that the window coating layer may include a fluorine-based compound ([0044], [0046]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu in view of Akutagawa as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0060908, “Yang”) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2019/01310394, “Miyamoto”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee fails to specifically teach the Vickers hardness and indentation hardness characteristics for the laminate film. However, in the same field of endeavor of hard coat optical films (e.g., [0002]), Yang teaches a Vickers hardness for a hard coat exterior layer of a laminate of greater than 55 in order to prevent scratches generated by external impacts (Yang, [0029]). In the same field of endeavor of optical films ([0002] – [0004]), Miyamoto teaches an indentation hardness for an optical film of on the range of from 0.5 to 10 GPa in order balance scratch resistance and handling abilities for the film (Miyamoto, [0050]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted the above hardness characteristics for the film of modified Lee in order to prevent the film from being scratched while balancing handling abilities of the film (e.g., Yang, [0029]; Miyamoto, [0050]).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu in view of Akutagawa as applied to claims 1 and 8, above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0196169, “Choi”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lee teaches the laminate has a transmittance of greater than 88% ([0117]) and a haze of less than 4% ([0117]) but fails to teach the transmittance of hard coat layer itself and thus fails to teach the claimed Transmittance increase. However, in the same field of endeavor of endeavor of hard coat layers ([0002] – [0005]), Choi teaches that it is known to provide a hard coat layer with a transmittance of greater than 80% in order to provide a suitably transparent hard coat layer for use in a display device ([0026], [0001], [0002]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have provided a hard coat layer with this transmittance. Such a range of transmittances for the laminate and hard coat layer itself would give rise to a Transmittance increase percentage reading on the claimed range (e.g., 90%-88%=2%, see Lee [0117]; Choi, [0026]). The Examiner notes that while the testing parameters described in the prior art may note be identical to those claimed, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected the films of modified Lee to have acted substantially similarly under substantially similar testing conditions and further would have found it obvious to have modified the films of modified Lee so as to provide substantially similar optical properties under the claimed testing parameters. The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the laminate has a yellow index of from -2.5 to 3.5 ([0099]) but fails to teach the claimed Yellow index decrease. However, in the same field of endeavor of endeavor of hard coat layers ([0002] – [0005]), Choi teaches that it is known to provide a hard coat layer with a yellow index of 5 or less in order to provide a hard coat layer having suitable optical properties for use in a display device ([0026], [0040]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have provided a hard coat layer with this yellow index. Such a range of yellow indexes for the laminate and hard coat layer itself would give rise to a yellow index decrease percentage reading on the claimed range (e.g., 0.5%-0%=0.5%, see Lee [0117]; Choi, [0026], [0040]). The Examiner notes that the testing conditions of Choi are substantially similar to those of the claimed invention and thus it would have been obvious to have adopted these conditions (Choi, [0041]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu in view of Akutagawa as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kourtakis et al. (US 2021/0053314, “Kourtakis”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee fails to specifically teach the claimed CIE Lab color coordinate values for the laminate structure. However, in the same field of endeavor of polymer laminates for use in display devices ([0002]), Kourtakis teaches that suitable color coordinate values for the polymer films should be colorless and transparent and thus a* and b* should be less than 2 (Kourtakis, [0039]) and thus the adoption of these values would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. Further, because L*, which is a measure of lightness of color, should be preferably lighter or brighter, it would have been obvious to have adapted the film towards 100, which is considered a diffuse white color ([0039]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Liu in view of Akutagawa as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (US 2006/0189706, “Tokuda”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee fails to specifically the claimed indentation creep. However, in the same field of endeavor of optical layers or components, including acrylate optical materials, ([0001] – [0005]), Tokuda teaches that it is useful to provide a material having an indentation creep deformation of around 15% to 40% so that the material suitably recovers from a deformed state after pressure is applied to the lens layer ([0101]). Thus it would have been obvious to have applied this property to the laminate of modified Lee so that the material suitably recovers from a deformed state after pressure is applied to the laminate ([0101]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/10/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the claimed recovery rate according to a specific nanoindentation test. However, as described above, Akutagawa teaches a recovery rate percentage of from 84 to 99% ([0015]) in order to provide a film having both good deformation recovery and high hardness (see, Akutagawa, e.g., [0074]). That is, adopting high recovery rates is known to be desirable in the prior art. The Examiner therefore maintains it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted the above recovery characteristics for the film of modified Lee, including adapting so as to have high recoveries consistent with the claimed testing parameters, in order to provide a film having both good deformation recovery and high hardness (see, Akutagawa, e.g., [0074]).
Applicant argues that claim 2 includes patentable subject matter because the prior art fails to teach the PEBA elastic layer would have the claimed Vickers hardness and indentation hardness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that such properties are well known to be desirable. As described in the rejection of claim 2, above, Yang teaches a Vickers hardness for a hard coat exterior layer of a laminate of greater than 55 in order to prevent scratches generated by external impacts (Yang, [0029]) and Miyamoto teaches an indentation hardness for an optical film of on the range of from 0.5 to 10 GPa in order balance scratch resistance and handling abilities for the film (Miyamoto, [0050]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted the above hardness characteristics for the film of modified Lee in order to prevent the film from being scratched while balancing handling abilities of the film (e.g., Yang, [0029]; Miyamoto, [0050]).
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-19 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights