DETAILED ACTION
In light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, the following action is non-final.
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2016/0122600).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 10, Moon et al. teaches an adhesive film (paragraph [0003]) formed from an adhesive composition including a monomer mixture including a hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate and a comonomer; and organic particles, the organic particles having an average particle diameter of about 10 nm to about 400 nm (See Abstract), wherein an amount of hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate is about 5 wt % to about 40 wt % and about 60 wt % to about 95 wt % of a comonomer (paragraph [0015]). The hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate may be a C.sub.1 to C.sub.20 alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic acid ester having at least one hydroxyl group, a C.sub.5 to C.sub.20 cycloalkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic acid ester having at least one hydroxyl group, or a C.sub.6 to C.sub.20 aryl group-containing (meth)acrylic acid ester having at least one hydroxyl group (paragraph [0059]). The comonomer may include one or more of an alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer, an ethylene oxide-containing monomer, a propylene oxide-containing monomer, an amine group-containing monomer, an amide group-containing monomer, an alkoxy group-containing monomer, a phosphoric acid group-containing monomer, a sulfonic acid group-containing monomer, a phenyl group-containing monomer, or a silane group-containing monomer and may have a glass transition temperature of about −150° C. to about 0° C (paragraph [0014]). 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); see MPEP 2144.05.
While Moon et al. discloses a carboxyl group-containing monomer, it is not required in the monomer mixture (paragraph [0078]).
Given that Moon et al. teaches adhesive film comprising materials and structure including amounts of hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate and comonomer as presently claimed, the adhesive film would necessarily have a cohesive energy and a difference in cohesive energy as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, Moon et al. teaches wherein the organic particles have a core-shell structure, the core may include one or more of, for example, polymethyl acrylate, polyethyl acrylate, polypropyl acrylate, polybutyl acrylate, polyisopropyl acrylate, polyhexyl acrylate, polyhexyl methacrylate, polyethylhexyl acrylate, or polyethylhexyl methacrylate and the shell may include one or more of, for example, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyethyl methacrylate, polypropyl methacrylate, polybutyl methacrylate, polyisopropyl methacrylate, polyisobutyl methacrylate, and polycyclohexyl methacrylate (paragraphs [0087], [0090], and [0092]).
Regarding claim 6, given that Moon et al. teaches adhesive film comprising structure and materials, including (meth)acrylic copolymer containing hydroxyl group and nanoparticles have a core-shell structure, including a shell of poly(methyl methacrylate), identical to that presently claimed, it is clear that the nanoparticles are intrinsically chemically coupled to the matrix as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 8, Moon et al. teaches the organic particles may be present in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the monomer mixture (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Moon et al. teaches the adhesive composition may further include a silane coupling agent (paragraph [0113]), an initiator and a crosslinking agent (paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, given that Moon et al. teaches adhesive film comprising materials and structure including nanoparticles and amount of hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate as presently claimed, the adhesive film would necessarily have an adhesive strength as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, given that Moon et al. teaches adhesive film comprising materials and structure including nanoparticles and amount of hydroxyl group-containing (meth)acrylate as presently claimed, the adhesive film would necessarily have a haze as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. Further, Moon et al. teaches wherein the adhesive film may have a thickness of about 100 μm and a haze of about 5% or less (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Moon et al. teaches a display member, including an optical film; and the adhesive layer formed on one or both surfaces of the optical film (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Moon et al. teaches wherein the adhesive film may be used with touch panels (paragraph [0143]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights