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 .
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 1-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0004225 A1 of record, “Iijima”) in view of Iida et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0356679 A1, “Iida”).
Regarding Claim 1, Iijima discloses an optical laminate comprising in the following order:
A polarizer (Figure 2, polarizer 3 or 5);
A retardation layer including a cycloolefin-based polymer film disposed on a polarizer via an adhesive layer (Figure 2, retardation layer 1/2; Paragraph 0068; Paragraph 0084 discloses the retardation layer disposed on the polarizer via an adhesive layer); and
A pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Paragraph 0292), wherein
The polarizer includes a protective layer on a side of the polarizer opposite the retardation layer via an adhesive layer (Figure 2, protective layer a; Paragraph 0403; Paragraph 0281 discloses an adhesive between the protective layer and the polarizer on both sides), and
Condition I and Condition III, or Condition II and Condition III are satisfied,
Condition I: an interlayer is further provided between the retardation layer and the pressure sensitive adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0107-0125 disclose a liquid crystal layer 2 between the polymer retardation layer 1 and the pressure sensitive adhesive layer, or Figure 2 discloses interlayers b and 4 between pressure sensitive adhesive disposed on c and the retardation layer 1),
Condition II: the pressure sensitive adhesive layer contains an organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 500 or less, and a content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 500 or less is 2.6% by mass or less, or in a case where a durability test is performed at 115°C for 100 hours in a state in which the retardation layer and the pressure sensitive adhesive layer are in direct contact with each other and the optical laminate is adhered to a glass substrate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer, a content of an organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 in the pressure sensitive adhesive layer after the durability test is 50% or less of a content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 before the durability test,
Condition III: an in-plane retardation Re (550) and a thickness direction retardation Rth (550) of an entire retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm respectively satisfy Expressions (1) and (2), Expression (1): 0 nm ≤ Re (550) ≤ 350 nm Expression (2): -200 nm ≤ Rth (550) ≤ 200 nm (Table 3; Paragraph 0044 – expression (2) and expression (3)).
Iijima fails to disclose that the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is disposed directly on a liquid crystal cell and an interlayer is disposed directly on the retardation layer between the retardation layer and the pressure sensitive adhesive.
However, Iida discloses a similar device where the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is disposed directly on a liquid crystal cell and an interlayer is disposed directly on the retardation layer between the retardation layer and the pressure sensitive adhesive (Iida, Figure 2, liquid crystal cell 201; pressure sensitive adhesive 202; interlayer film 203, retardation layer 204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Iijima to include a pressure sensitive adhesive in a particular position as disclosed by Iida. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a continuous optical film laminate that exhibits good optical durability under humidification (Iida, Paragraphs 0015-0016).
Regarding Claim 2, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1, wherein Condition I is satisfied, and wherein the interlayer is an organic interlayer or an inorganic interlayer (Paragraphs 0107-0125 disclose direct contact, where the liquid crystal layer would be organic).
Regarding Claim 3, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 2, wherein the organic interlayer is a layer other than a liquid crystal layer (Figure 2, organic interlayer b is a PMMA organic layer).
Regarding Claim 4, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1, wherein the retardation layer has a liquid crystal layer on a side of the polarizer of the cycloolefin-based polymer film (Paragraphs 0107-0125).
Regarding Claim 5, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 2, wherein the retardation layer has a liquid crystal layer on a side of the polarizer of the cycloolefin-based polymer film (Paragraphs 0107-0125).
Regarding Claim 6, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate of according to claim 3, wherein the retardation layer has a liquid crystal layer on a side of the polarizer of the cycloolefin-based polymer film (Paragraphs 0107-0125).
Regarding Claim 7, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1, wherein Condition I is satisfied, and the interlayer is a polymer film disposed directly on the retardation layer via an adhesive or a pressure sensitive adhesive having a film thickness of 0.1 to 50 um (Figure 2, interlayer c is a PMMA polymer film, where Paragraph 0394 discloses a film thickness of 40um).
Regarding Claim 8, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 7, wherein the polymer film contains at least one selected form the group consisting of a cycloolefin-based polymer, an acrylic polymer, a polycarbonate-based polymer, and a cellulose-based polymer (Paragraph 0394 discloses a PMMA polymer film, which is an acrylic polymer).
Regarding Claim 9, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1, wherein Condition I is satisfied, and an in-plane retardation Re1 (550) and a thickness direction retardation Rth1 (550) of an entirety of the retardation layer and the interlayer at a wavelength of 550 nm respectively satisfy Expression (1) and Expression (2), Expression (1): 0 nm ≤ Re1 (550) ≤ 350 nm Expression (2): -200 nm ≤ Rth1 (550) ≤ 200 nm (Table 3; Paragraph 0044 – expression (2) and expression (3)).
Regarding Claim 14, Iijima in view of Iida discloses an image display device comprising: the optical laminate according to claim 1 (Figure 2; Paragraph 0194).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Iida in further view of Sasano et al (US Publication No.: US 2005/0272898 A1 of record, “Sasano”).
Regarding Claim 10, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical lamination according to claim 1.
Iijima fails to disclose that in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 1,000 ppm or less.
Sasano also fails to explicitly disclose that in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 1,000 ppm or less. However, Sasano discloses a general environment of measuring the content of the organic-low-molecular weight component for the purpose enhancing the adhesiveness and bond (Sasano, Paragraphs 0067-0070). 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 content of the organic-low-molecular-weight component is the result-effective variable, and when this content is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given adhesive, the recognized results of improving adhesion and sealing are realized. While Sasano does not directly disclose that the exact content of the organic-low-molecular-weight component, Sasano does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Sasano, 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 in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 1,000 ppm or less for the purpose of enhancing adhesion and better sealing products.
Regarding Claim 11, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical lamination according to claim 1.
Iijima fails to disclose that in a case where the durability test is performed at 115°C for 100 hours in the state in which the optical laminate is adhered to the glass substrate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer, in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer after the durability test using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 500 ppm or less.
Sasano also fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where the durability test is performed at 115°C for 100 hours in the state in which the optical laminate is adhered to the glass substrate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer, in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer after the durability test using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 500 ppm or less. However, Sasano discloses a general environment of measuring the content of the organic-low-molecular weight component to optimize the ppm for the purpose enhancing the adhesiveness and bond (Sasano, Paragraphs 0067-0070). 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 content of the organic-low-molecular-weight component is the result-effective variable, and when this content is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given adhesive, the recognized results of improving adhesion and sealing are realized. While Sasano does not directly disclose that the exact content of the organic-low-molecular-weight component, Sasano does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Sasano, 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 in a case where the durability test is performed at 115°C for 100 hours in the state in which the optical laminate is adhered to the glass substrate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer, in a measurement performed on the pressure sensitive adhesive layer after the durability test using a headspace type gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, the content of the organic low-molecular-weight component having a molecular weight of 32 to 200 is 500 ppm or less for the purpose of enhancing adhesion and better sealing products.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Iida in further view of Nakanishi et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0119700 A1 of record, “Nakanishi”).
Regarding Claim 12, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1.
Iijima fails to disclose that a film thickness of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 5 μm or greater and 50 μm or less, and a storage elastic modulus of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 0.18 MPa or greater and 5 MPa or less.
However, Nakanishi discloses a similar laminate where a film thickness of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 5 μm or greater and 50 μm or less, and a storage elastic modulus of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 0.18 MPa or greater and 5 MPa or less (Nakanishi, Paragraph 0083 discloses a storage elastic modulus of 1 MPa or less; Paragraph 0090 discloses a thickness of 10um or more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressure sensitive adhesive as disclosed by Iijima to have a particular thickness and modulus as disclosed by Nakanishi. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of enhancing strength and durability and suppressing defects and dents (Nakanishi, Paragraph 0090).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Iida in further view of Park et al (US Publication No.: US 2010/0297368 A1 of record, “Park”).
Regarding Claim 13, Iijima in view of Iida discloses the optical laminate according to claim 1.
Iijima fails to disclose that a residual amount of an acrylic acid ester-based or methacrylic acid ester-based monomer having a cyclic structure in the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 100 ppm or less.
However, Park discloses a similar laminate where a residual amount of an acrylic acid ester-based or methacrylic acid ester-based monomer having a cyclic structure in the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is 100 ppm or less (Park, Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressure sensitive adhesive as disclosed by Iijima to have a particular make up as disclosed by Park. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the adhesion property balance (Park, Paragraph 0030).
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 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