DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
As previously set forth: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
As previously set forth: Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, butyl methacrylate, sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate, no additional graft copolymer with core/shell in the reply filed on 2/16/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/26.
Priority
The foreign priority has been translated to English, thus the claims have an effective date of the filing of the foreign priority: 12/11/20
Response to Argument/Amendments
Applicant argues Abe only discloses MW up to 150,000 and Takebe does not remedy these deficiencies because Takebe discloses an upper limit of 600k. Applicant argues the amended claims are thusly not met by Abe and Takebe.
The Examiner disagrees. As put forth in the interview 7/30/26, the examiner would need to fully consider Takebe upon submission of the amendment. Upon further consideration it is found that Takebe discloses no upper limit, but prefers a range of 100,000-600,000 and prefers an upper limit of 1,000,000 in view of production considerations of the polymer [0078]. Thus, Takebe reasonably embraces using a MW of at least 1,000,000 however it is noted that such is not the upper limit in light of the disclosure therein. As such Takebe is found to meet the newly claimed MW limits and arguments herein are not found persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejection over Claim 8, and its dependents, 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 is overcome by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sato (US 2012/0142796) is overcome by amendment.
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.
Rejection over Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JP2019006865 reference of record, English translation included) is overcome by amendment.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Takebe (US 2009/0099308).
Elements of Abe v. Takebe are as previously set forth, the rejection is modified below to address the new MW of claim 1.
Abe discloses methacrylic resin compositions (title). Said compositions comprise a thermoplastic resin comprising 1-45 parts of a resin that has 60 mass% or more methyl methacrylate and 40 mass% or less monofunctional monomer other than methyl methacrylate (last paragraph of page 1 of attached translation). The monofunctional monomer may be butyl methacrylate (page 3 para 10)
The composition further comprises an emulsifier such as sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate (page 5 para 7) (meeting the elected species of ionic emulsifier) and various other ionic emulsifiers therein in amounts ranging from 0.5-3parts per 100 parts resin (page 5 last paragraph to page 6 first paragraph).
The emulsifier may not be washed out of the product slurry composition prior to use (page 6 last paragraph). Though the examples disclose washing the resin polymer, Page 6 last paragraph makes this step optional if one does not need to do so.
Abe includes elements as set forth above. Abe discloses a MW of the entire resin composition to be 60k-150k (page 7 paragraph 7) and does not disclose the use of a MW of 80*104 or more.
Takabe discloses optical films for polarizing plates and display devices (title), thus embracing Abe, comprising an acrylic resin (embracing Abe) and cellulose ester resin (abstract). The acrylic resin of Takabe comprises 50-99% methyl methacrylate, and, 1-50 % comonomer such as alkyl acrylates or alkyl methyacrylates [0075-0076], embracing the same use, resin and monomer wt% as Abe. When used for polarizing plates and display devices Takabe discloses useful MW of at least 80k (embracing Abe) and includes (but does not limit to) a range of 100k-600k [0078]. Takabe discloses the preferred (but not limited to) upper MW is 1,000,000 (100*104). Takabe discloses that one does not want the composition to be brittle, and, increasing the MW decreases brittleness [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the MW taught by Abe to 1,000,000, as taught by Takabe, in order to improve the flexibility (and decrease brittleness) of the film product.
The composition is used for films (page 1 first paragraph), though “produced by molding…by solution casting” is product by process. Such being met unless Applicant shows a distinct product is produced. Further the resin may be solution casted (page 10 3rd paragraph) to form a film
Elements above meet claim 1. The above mentioned sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate meets the emulsifier of claims 1-4. Butyl methacrylate may be used as the comonomer (page 3 para 10) (the elected species, not currently explicitly required in the claims), meeting claims 5-6.
Since the composition requirements are met, and, it is used to make films, the haze % of claim 9 is deemed to be embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
The resin may be solution casted (page 10 3rd paragraph) (implicitly inferring the use of a solvent) to form a film wherein casing such would implicitly require a base material, as required by claim 12. Since the composition, and, type of film are met the haze property of claim 11 must be embraced by the reference. The end film can be called a polarizer protective film, further, the resin film may be used as polarizer protective films (page 10 first paragraph) and display device like liquid crystal displays and flat planal displays (page 9 last paragraph), meeting claims 13-15. Solution casting (as discussed above) implies use of solvent (such is needed to form a solution), as further required by claim 17.
Regarding claims 18-19 Abe does not disclose the use of alcohol/methanol/ethanol as the solvent for solution casting the composition.
Takabe includes elements as set forth above. Takabe discloses solvents such as methanol and ethanol [0210] as suitable alcohols for use in solution casting the film [0200]. Takabe thusly discloses such to be a suitably known solvent for the same intended use as Abe. The solvent is used in amounts ranging 15-45 wt% of the solution casting composition [0209].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Abe the use of 15-45 wt% methanol or ethanol, as taught by Takabe, since such is recognized in the art as a suitably known amount and type of solvent for solution casting acrylic resin films. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights