RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara et al. (WO 2020/149206) (cited in the IDS filed on 01/16/2025) in view of Hasebe et al. (WO 2019/235160) (cited in the IDS filed on 09/21/2023).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 1, Kasahara et al. discloses an acrylic resin laminate for a display device (par. [0002]-[0003]) wherein the acrylic film having a glass transition temperature (Tg) in the range of 120oC to 180oC (Abstract), which overlaps with the presently claimed range. The acrylic film is further coated with a hard coat layer (par. [1398]).
With respect to the limitations “the hard coat layer is produced by […] from 150 mJ/cm2 to 500 mJ/cm2”, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Since the limitations related to the process of making the claimed hard coat layer do not provide clear distinct structural features to the claimed hard coat layer that would patentably distinguish it from the prior art disclosure in Kasahara et al., the teachings the reference render the claimed hard coat layer obvious.
Kasahara et al. does not disclose the elongation at break of the coating, crack elongation at 120oC or a Δhaze value.
Hasebe et al. teaches a glass laminate for a display device including an acrylic film and a functional film which may include a hard coat layer. (par. [0002], [0023] and [0109]). Hasebe et al. teaches that the elongation at break of the acrylic resin layer is 40% or more, the haze value is 1.3% or less and a crack elongation of 20% or more, which all overlap with the presently claimed range. (Abstract and par. [0008], [0024]-[0025]). Hasebe et al. teaches that the composition can be optimized to improve these properties to yield an improved product for a display device. (par. [0017], [0028], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the elongation at break, crack elongation and Δhaze value in Kasahara et al. based on the teachings of Hasebe et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the properties of the acrylic laminate in order to improve the material properties of the acrylic resin laminate structure to yield an improved product for use in a display device.
With respect to the haze value, while Hasebe et al. does not specifically refer to the Δhaze after undergoing a steel wool wear test, the reference teaches that the laminate is scratch resistant due to the presence of the hard coat layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prevent degradation of transparency due to scratching protection from the presence of the hard coating layer to maintain the low haze value of the laminate. Furthermore, since Hasebe et al. teaches haze values below 1%, a Δhaze which corresponds to a difference in haze before and after a scratch test, would be below 1.0% as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kasahara et al. teaches the use of a (meth)acrylate resin with a photoinitiator for the hard coat layer. (Abstract, Example 11, par. [1218], [1398]).
Regarding claims 8-9, the composition discloses in Kasahara et al. would meet the limitations of a “molded product” and “on-vehicle display front panel” since these limitations do not inherently impart any additional structural features to the claim. (see MPEP 2111.02).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara et al. (WO 2020/149206) (cited in the IDS filed on 01/16/2025) in view of Hasebe et al. (WO 2019/235160) (cited in the IDS filed on 09/21/2023), further in view of Kitayama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,174,191).
Kasahara in view Hasebe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kasahara in view Hasebe et al. does not disclose the phase different or ΔE as presently claimed.
Kitayama et al. teaches a resin material and film composition including a (meth)acrylic monomer material (Abstract). Kitayama et al. teaches that when used for an optical film, the film should have a low optical anisotropy, represented by an in-lane phase difference of 10 nm or less to prevent unwanted reduction in contrast issues. (col. 42, line 66 – col. 43, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the in-plane phase difference in the laminate of Kasahara et al. to 10 nm or less, overlapping with the presently claimed range, as taught by Kitayama et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for to lower the phase difference to less than 10 nm in order to yield an improved product for use in an optical laminate to prevent unwanted deleterious properties such as reduction in contrast.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara et al. (WO 2020/149206) (cited in the IDS filed on 01/16/2025) in view of Hasebe et al. (WO 2019/235160) (cited in the IDS filed on 09/21/2023), further in view of Koyama et al. (WO 2019/181752).
Kasahara in view Hasebe et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4-5, Kasahara in view Hasebe et al. does not disclose graft copolymers (A) and (B) as claimed or crosslinked elastomers (A1) and (B1).
Koyama et al. discloses an acrylic resin film having high hardness which includes graft copolymers A and B, wherein A has a particle diameter of 20-150 and B has a larger particle diameter and two crosslinked elastomers. (Abstract and page 5). The content of the crosslinked elastomer is 1-15 parts by mass or less (page 5) and the content of particles A is 40 parts by weight and B is 3.9 parts by weight. (Example 1). Koyama et al. discloses that these materials contribute to the toughness of the acrylic film and generally improve the properties of the acrylic resin material. (page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include graft copolymer particles having the dimensions and in amounts as disclosed in Koyama et al. in the composition of Kasahara in view of Hasebe et al. as well as the crosslinked elastomers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include these materials in the acrylic laminate of Kasahara in view of Hasebe et al. in order to improve the mechanical properties of the acrylic resin material, including the toughness of the film.
Regarding claim 6, teaches that the pencil hardness of the acrylic resin material is B or higher (see Table 2) as well as an elongation at break at 40% or more (page 4), due to the presence of the graft copolymers A and B and crosslinked elastomer.
Regarding claim 7, Kasahara et al. does not teach the presence of a reactive UV absorber.
Koyama et al. teaches including a reactive UV absorber monomer in the acrylic resin composition to improve the weather and chemical resistance thereof, in amounts of 0.01-5% by mass. (pages 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a reactive UV absorber monomer in the composition of Kasahara et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a reactive UV absorber in the composition of Kasahara et al. in order to improve the weather and chemical resistance of the acrylic resin film of Koyama et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12/19/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 08/27/2025 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Hasebe et al. fail to disclose a Δhaze of not more than 1.0% in a steel wool wear test as presently claimed. However, the reference teaches that the laminate is scratch resistant due to the presence of the hard coat layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prevent degradation of transparency due to scratching protection from the presence of the hard coating layer to maintain the low haze value of the laminate. Furthermore, since Hasebe et al. teaches haze values below 1%, a Δhaze value before and after a steel wool test for a hard coat layer having haze value that starts at less than 1% would be not more than 1.0% as claimed. Therefore, the disclosure in the reference of a haze of 1.3% renders obvious the limitation of a Δhaze value.
With respect to the newly amended limitations relating to the use of a cumulative amount of UV light and using a cooling roller, Applicant argues that the laminate exhibits improved properties relating to Δhaze and therefore would imply the presence of a structure, relying on Tables 5-6 of the specification. The Examiner disagrees.
The provided examples are not commensurate in scope with the present claims and therefore the new limitations cannot be interpreted as providing a distinct structural feature to the claimed hard coat layer. For Example, the coating materials used in Tables 5-6 refer to specific hard coating compositions CM2-4 at a layer thickness of 2 microns. As far as the examiner can tell, these are specific acrylic-based polymer compositions which are formulated in such a manner than both the composition and thickness would affect the haze values thereof. As such, the disclosed examples Applicant is relying on are much narrower in scope than the presently claimed limitations. Furthermore, in view of the disclosure in Hasebe et al. teaches haze values below 1%, the Δhaze value of the hard coating layer in Hasebe et al. would overlap with the presently claimed range and would therefor be present in the claimed layer, despite lacking in the disclosure of a claimed process limitations. Therefore, even if Δhaze value was a structural feature as a result of the claimed process limitations, it is not exclusive to the process presently claimed and therefore does not patentably define over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 02/02/2026