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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 13-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0142255 A1 of record, “Kitagawa”) in view of Bellman et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0087105 A1, “Bellman”) and Ozawa et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0338872 A1, “Ozawa”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a laminated film suitable for a liquid crystal polarizing film (Paragraph 0052; Figure 1, laminate film 12) comprising:
A base film (Paragraph 0052 discloses a base film as an inner layer); and
A cured resin layer formed from a curable resin composition, wherein the laminated film has an average value of light transmittances at 300 to 430 nm of 35% or less (Paragraph 0052 discloses a cured resin layer has an outer layer; Paragraph 0053 discloses a cured resin material; Paragraph 0033 discloses a transmittance value in the claimed wavelength range being less than 35%).
Kitagawa fails to disclose that the surface of the cured resin layer side has a surface pencil hardness of H or more obtained according to JIS K600-5-4:1999 under a load condition of 750 g, and the cured resin layer has a thickness of from 1 um to 4 um, and the laminated film has a thickness ratio (base film)/(cured resin layer) of 15 or more.
However, Bellman discloses a similar film where the surface of the cured resin layer side has a surface pencil hardness of H or more obtained according to JIS K600-5-4:1999 under a load condition of 750 g, and the cured resin layer has a thickness of from 1 um to 4 um (Bellman, Paragraph 0083 discloses a pencil hardness of 9H, which falls within the claimed range; Paragraph 0141 discloses a thickness of .005um to 5um, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base film as disclosed by Kitagawa to have specific characteristics of the laminated film as disclosed by Bellman. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving excellent scratch resistance and crack mitigation (Bellman, Paragraph 0083).
Further, Ozawa discloses a similar laminated film that has a thickness ratio (base film)/(cured resin layer) of 15 or more (Ozawa, Paragraph 0145 discloses a ratio of the cured resin layer to the base film to be 1/99 to 30/70, so the ratio (base film)/(cured resin layer) would be 99/1 to 70/30, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laminated film as disclosed by Kitagawa to have a specific thickness ratio among layers as disclosed by Ozawa. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving excellent chemical resistance (Ozawa, Paragraph 0145).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1, wherein the base film comprises an ultraviolet ray absorbent (Paragraph 0053 discloses the inner layer having UV-absorbing ability).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 2, wherein the ultraviolet ray absorbent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a triazine-based ultraviolet ray absorbent, a benzotriazole-based ultraviolet ray absorbent, and a benzoxazine-based ultraviolet ray absorbent (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 4, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1, wherein the curable resin composition comprises a (meth)acrylate and a modifier (Paragraph 0101).
Regarding Claim 6, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1.
Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose that the laminated film does not crack in a 200,000 times bending test under a condition of R=2 mm. However, Kitagawa discloses a general environment of achieving a laminate film with excellent durability and excellent weatherability thereby having excellent hue (Kitagawa, Paragraph 0017). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding bending test is the result-effective variable, and when the film is optimized to the appropriate strength within the specified parameters of a given film, the recognized results of improving durability and hue are realized. While Kitagawa does not directly disclose a particular result of a bending test, Kitagawa does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Kitagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the laminated film does not crack in a 200,000 times bending test under a condition of R=2 mm for the purpose of improving durability and hue.
Regarding Claim 11, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1, wherein the base film has a thickness of 9um or more and 10um or less (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 13, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1.
Kitagawa fails to disclose that the laminated film has a b-value of 6.0 or less as measured in accordance with JIS Z8722:2009 by transmission method. However, Kitagawa discloses a general environment of optimizing the laminated film to have a low haze value (Kitagawa, Paragraph 0099). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the b-value of the laminated film is the result-effective variable, and when the b-value is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given film, the recognized results of reducing haze and improving clarity are realized. While Kitagawa does not directly disclose a particular b-value of the laminated film, Kitagawa does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Kitagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the laminated film has a b-value of 6.0 or less as measured in accordance with JIS Z8722:2009 by transmission method for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance by reducing haze and improving clarity.
Regarding Claim 14, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1.
Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose that the laminated film has a light transmittance at 410 nm of 57% or more. However, Kitagawa discloses a general environment of gradually increasing transmittance with an increasing wavelength, where a wavelength of 450 nm has a transmittance of 75% or more (Kitagawa, Paragraph 0098). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the light transmittance at a 410 nm wavelength is the result-effective variable, and when transmittance is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given film, the recognized results of improving clarity are realized. While Kitagawa does not directly disclose a particular light transmittance at 410 nm, Kitagawa does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Kitagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the laminated film has a light transmittance at 410 nm of 57% or more for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance and improving clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses a surface protection film suitable for a liquid crystal polarizing film (Paragraph 0052; Figure 1, surface protection film 12), comprising: the laminated film of claim 1, having the cured resin layer provided on one surface of the base film and an adhesive layer provided on the other surface thereof (Paragraph 0052; Paragraph 0097; Figure 1, adhesive layer 30).
Regarding Claim 16, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the surface protection film of claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a meth(acrylic)-based polymer (A) (Paragraph 0101).
Regarding Claim 17, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the surface protection film of claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a curable compound (B) and a radical polymerization initiator (C) (Paragraphs 0101-0102).
Regarding Claim 18, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the surface protection film of claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer has a thickness of 10um or more and 175um or less (Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 19, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses a protection film combination (Figure 1), comprising:
The surface protection film of claim 15 and a release film, which are laminated on each other (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 20, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses a laminate combination (Figure 1), comprising: the laminated film of claim 1 or a surface protection film suitable for a liquid crystal polarizing film comprising the laminated film, having the cured resin layer provided on one surface of the base film and an adhesive layer provided on the other surface thereof; and a liquid crystal polarizing film (Figure 1, liquid crystal polarizing film 20; Paragraph 0030), wherein the laminated film or the surface protection film and the liquid crystal polarizing film are laminated on each other (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 20, wherein the liquid crystal polarizing film comprises an optically anisotropic layer (Paragraphs 0030-0032).
Regarding Claim 22, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 20, wherein the liquid crystal polarizing film comprises an optically anisotropic layer and an orientation membrane (Paragraphs 0030-0032).
Regarding Claim 23, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 21, wherein the optically anisotropic layer comp[rises a polymerizable liquid crystal compound (Paragraph 0087).
Regarding Claim 24, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 21, wherein the optically anisotropic layer comprises a polymerizable liquid crystal compound and a colorant (Paragraph 0087).
Regarding Claim 25, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 20, wherein the liquid crystal polarizing film has a thickness (total thickness) of 1/5 or less of a thickness of the base film (Paragraph 0085).
Regarding Claim 26, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminate combination of claim 20.
Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose that the laminate has a change rate of polarization degree at a wavelength of 595 nm of 4.0% or less after a test with a xenon light resistance tester, with a Ci400 device (name available from Atlas Testing Solutions) under an irradiation condition of an illuminance of 0.55 W/m2 at 340 nm for 40 hours. However, Kitagawa discloses a general environment of achieving a polarizing plate with excellent durability and excellent weatherability thereby having excellent hue (Kitagawa, Paragraph 0017). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the change rate of the polarization degree is the result-effective variable, and when the change rate is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given film, the recognized results of improving durability and hue are realized. While Kitagawa does not directly disclose a particular change rate of the polarization degree, Kitagawa does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Kitagawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the laminate has a change rate of polarization degree at a wavelength of 595 nm of 4.0% or less after a test with a xenon light resistance tester, with a Ci400 device (name available from Atlas Testing Solutions) under an irradiation condition of an illuminance of 0.55 W/m2 at 340 nm for 40 hours for the purpose of improving durability and hue.
Regarding Claim 27, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses an image display apparatus (Paragraph 0060), comprising the laminate combination of claim 20.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa in further view of Takarada et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0355704 A1 of record, “Takarada”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa discloses the laminated film of claim 1.
Kitagawa fails to disclose that the base film is a polyester film.
However, Takarada discloses a similar film where the base film is a polyester film (Takarada, Paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base film as disclosed by Kitagawa to include polyester as disclosed by Takarada. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving excellent optical transparency (Takarada, Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa and Takarada discloses the laminated film of claim 7, wherein the polyester film comprises a three-layer structure (Kitagawa, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitagawa in view of Bellman and Ozawa and Takarada discloses the laminated film of claim 8, wherein the intermediate layer of the polyester film comprises the ultraviolet ray absorbent (Kitagawa, Paragraphs 0052-0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871