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
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (US 2023/0305403 A1) in view of Naito et al. (US 2024/0059803 A1), Kim et al. (US 2020/0371638 A1) and Nukui et al. (US 2017/0351362 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Katayama teaches a transparent conductive substrate for use in touch sensors (Claim 1 and 23 of Katayama; Paragraph 0003, 0600) comprising a first resist layer (first photosensitive layer), a first transparent conductive layer, a transparent core, a second transparent conductive layer, and a second resist layer (second photosensitive layer) (Claim 1 and 23 of Katayama; Paragraph 0085-0090, 0093-0097).
Katayama teaches the first and second photosensitive layers have a different activation wavelength (Claim 1 and 23 of Katayama). Katayama teaches one layer can go through photopolymerization at wavelengths of 400 nm or more and another layer can go through photopolymerization at wavelengths of less than 400 nm. (Paragraph 0386; Claim 1, 23 and 36 of Katayama). Therefore, Katayama teaches the first resist layer is composed of a UV-light sensitive composition, as the first layer photopolymerizes at a wavelength of less than 400 nm, and the second resist layer is composed of a visible-light sensitive composition, as the second layer photopolymerizes at a wavelength of greater than 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Katayama teaches the UV-light sensitive composition and the visible-light sensitive composition can include an alkali-soluble copolymer, where the alkali-soluble copolymer is formed from a mixture of styrene, (meth)acrylic acid, benzyl (meth) acrylate and an alkyl (meth)acrylate ester. (Paragraph 0268-0285).
Katayama does not teach the weight percent range for the alkali-soluble copolymer.
Naito teaches an alkali-soluble copolymer suitable for photosensitive compositions (Abstract) Naito teaches alkali-soluble copolymer is formed from 15 to 60 wt% of a styrene and (meth)acrylic acid and 20 to 85 wt% of benzyl methacrylate and alkyl methacrylic acid ester (methyl methacrylate). These ranges that overlaps the claimed range. Naito recites ranges such as 15 to 60 wt% styrene, 20 to 35 wt% of methacrylic acid, balance being methyl methacrylate, and 60 to 85 wt% of benzyl methacrylate (Paragraph 0066) These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Naito teaches this alkali-soluble resin has sufficient development resistance, resolution and adhesion when used in photosensitive compositions. (Paragraph 0052-0053) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed composition ranges and resulting alkali-soluble copolymer taught by Naito in Katayama due to the desirable properties of the claimed alkali-soluble copolymer.
Katayama does not specifically teach the transparent conductive substrate has a total transmittance from 400-800 nm being 60% or more.
Kim teaches a transparent conductive laminate comprising two transparent conductive layers for use as touch sensor. (Abstract; Claim 1 of Kim). Kim teaches the transparent conductive laminate/sensor should have a transmittance of 85% or more at a wavelength of 360 to 740 nm. (Claim 1 of Kim). This overlaps the claimed range. Kim teaches having a high transmittance range is sufficient to transmit light in the display area disposed under the touch sensor, ensuring visibility, luminance, and the like of the display. (Paragraph 0062). Nukui teaches a touch panel, where a layer has a transmittance of around 86% or greater from wavelengths of 400 to 800 nm. (Abstract). This overlaps the claimed range. Nukui teaches this transmittance for a layer improves the tone, the appearance of joined touch panel and display. (Paragraph 0052-0053). Thus, as Kim and Nukui teach having the claimed transmittance range for touch sensors and layers within touch panel sensors improves the appearance of the touch sensor display when the claimed transparent conductive substrate/touch sensor is mounted to a display and presented to a user, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the transmittance of Katayama to the claimed range for the improve visibility and tone when applying the touch sensor to a display panel to form a touch sensor display.
Regarding Claim 2, Katayama teaches the UV-light sensitive composition can comprise 30-70 wt% of the alkali-soluble copolymer, (Paragraph 0270-0285), 10-70 wt% of a polymerizable compound have an ethylene unsaturated double bond (Paragraph 0287-0304), and 0.1 wt% or more of a photoinitiator (Paragraph 0305-0313). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, Katayama teaches the visible sensitive composition can comprise 30-70 wt% of the alkali-soluble copolymer, (Paragraph 0270-0285), 10-70 wt% of a polymerizable compound have an ethylene unsaturated double bond (Paragraph 0287-0304), 0.1 wt% or more of a photoinitiator (Paragraph 0305-0313), 0.01 to 5 wt% of a visible-light absorbing sensitizer having a maximum absorption in the visible-light region, (Paragraph 0322-0327), and 0.1 to 3 wt% of a UV-absorber/blocking material (Paragraph 0335-0340). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Katayama teaches the transparent core can be quartz, glass or PEN, or PET. (Paragraph 0085-0091).
Regarding Claim 5, Katayama teaches the first and second transparent conductive layers can independently comprise ITO, silver nanowires, or IZO. (Paragraph 0093-0098).
Regarding Claim 6, Katayama teaches the transparent core can have a thickness of 10 to 100 microns (Paragraph 0092), the first and second transparent conductive layers can have a thickness of 0.001 to 1000 microns (Paragraph 0099), the thickness of the first and second photosensitive layers is 0.05 to 20 microns (Paragraph 0347, 0352). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Katayama teaches a first polymeric protective film contacting the first photosensitive layer and a second polymeric protective film contacting the second resist layer (Paragraph 0401-0404). Katayama teaches each of the first and second polymeric protective films can be 1 micron to 2 mm in thickness. (Paragraph 0404). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
A new ground of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Correspondence
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights