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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled.
The Section 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
However, a new Section 103 rejection has been implemented upon further search and consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0317969 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0115355 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-17, and 19,
Shimizu teaches an adhesive film comprising: a (meth)acrylic based copolymer; a (meth)acrylic based oligomer, and a curing agent (Jeong: abstract). The adhesive film has a thickness of from 10 to 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed 20 µm or less (Jeong: par. 0061). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The (meth)acrylic based copolymer includes a monomer mixture including at least one C1 to C20 alkyl group-containing (meth)acrylic monomer such as n-butyl (meth)acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate (Jeong: par. 0069 and 0070). The two alkyl group-containing monomers would have different homopolymer glass transition temperatures in which each would have a glass transition temperature of -50°C or less as they are the same monomers required by claim 8. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
The (meth)acrylic based oligomer has a glass transition temperature of from about 20°C to 60°C which overlaps with the claimed 50°C or less (Jeong: par. 0089). The oligomer may comprise a hydroxy group as one of the monomers may be hydroxyethyl methacrylate (Jeong: par. 0024 and 0091). The oligomer may comprise a (meth)acrylic based monomer having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of about 90°C or more as a unit component which is the same range as required by claim 16 (Jeong: par. 0091). The monomer may be t-butyl methacrylate or methyl acrylate (Jeong: par. 0091). The (meth)acrylic based oligomer may be present in an amount of between 2.5 parts by eight to 10 parts by weight relative to about 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic copolymer which overlaps with the claimed greater than 0 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the copolymer (Jeong: par. 0093). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
The curing agent may be a polyisocyanate based curing agent (Jeong: par. 0079-0080). The curing agent may be present in an amount of about 0.5 to 2 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the (meth0acrylic based copolymer in the composition which overlaps with the claimed greater than 0 to 1 part by weight relative to the copolymer (Jeong: par. 0082). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the polyisocyanate is a tri- or higher functional isocyante based curing agent having three or more isocyanate groups.
Kim teaches an adhesive film for a polarizing plate and an optical display (Kim: abstract). The adhesive comprises a (meth)acrylate based adhesive having a curing agent composed of a polyfunctional isocyanate with overlapping isocyanate compounds with Jeong and triisocyanate compounds that have three isocyanate groups to improve stress suppression by increasing storage modulus through crosslinking (Kim: par. 0042-0078).
Jeong and Kim are in the corresponding field of adhesive films for use in polarizer plates for optical displays. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a tri-functional isocyanate based curing agent having three isocyante groups in the adhesive film of Jeong to provide improved stress suppression by increasing the storage modulus through crosslinking as taught by Kim.
Jeong and Kim are silent towards the adhesive film having a maximum shear strain of 50% or less at 60°C and a peel strength of 600 gf/25 mm or more with respect to a polyimide based film at 25°C. However, Jeong does teach a desire for the peel strength to be 100 gf/25 mm or more (but does not teach the peel strength is tested in the claimed manner) (Jeong: par. 0015 and 0016).
However, Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film has the same structure (such as the claimed thickness) and same composition (such a compositional components and proportions) as noted in the explanation above. Therefore, the adhesive film of Jeong would be expected to intrinsically possess the same properties when tested in the claimed manner, such as the claimed maximum shear strain and peel strength. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2,
Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film required by claim 1. Jeong is silent towards the adhesive film having a peel strength of 400 gf/25 mm or more with respect to a polyimide based film at 85°C. However, Jeong does teach a desire for the peel strength to be 100 gf/25 mm or more (but does not teach the peel strength is tested in the claimed manner) (Jeong: par. 0015 and 0016).
However, Jeong teaches the adhesive film has the same structure (such as the claimed thickness) and same composition (such a compositional components and proportions) as noted in the explanation above. Therefore, the adhesive film of Jeong would be expected to intrinsically possess the same properties when tested in the claimed manner, such as the claimed peel strength. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3,
Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film required by claim 1. Jeong is silent towards the adhesive film having a thickness deviation of 4 nm or less. However, Jeong teaches examples in which the adhesive film has a specific thickness with no noted deviation or unevenness (Jeong: par. 0133). Therefore, it would be expected that the adhesive film does not have a thickness derivation and would thus be within the claimed range of 4 nm or less.
Regarding claims 4 and 5,
Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film required by claim 1. Jeong is silent towards the storage modulus of 0.2 MPa or less at -20°C or a storage modulus ratio (storage modulus at -20°C: storage modulus at 60°C) of 1:0.1 to 1:0.8.
However, Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film has the same structure (such as the claimed thickness) and same composition (such a compositional components and proportions) as noted in the explanation above. Therefore, the adhesive film of Jeong would be expected to intrinsically possess the same properties when tested in the claimed manner, such as the claimed storage modulus measured at the claimed temperatures and the claimed ratios measured at the two compared temperatures. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 20 and 21,
Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film required by claim 1. Jeong further teaches the adhesive film may be implemented into an optical display apparatus (an optical member) (Jeong: abstract).
Claim(s) 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kim and in further view of Han et al. (US 2020/0108587 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 18,
Jeong in view of Kim teaches the adhesive film required by claims 1 and 10. Jeong is silent towards the adhesive film further comprising a metal chelate curing agent in an amount of 5 parts by weight or less relative to 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic based copolymer in the composition.
Han teaches an adhesive layer comprising a (meth)acrylic based adhesive composition comprising a (meth)acrylic based copolymer and a curing agent (Han: par. 0100). The curing agents may include at least one of an isocyanate curing agent, an epoxy curing agent, an imide curing agent, or a metal chelate curing agent (Han: par. 0101). Thus, metal chelate curing agents are known functional equivalents in the adhesive film art with isocyanate curing agents for use in (meth)acrylic based adhesive for display devices. The curing agent may be present in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 1 parts by weight which is within the claimed range of 5 parts by weight or less compared to the (meth) acrylic copolymer (Han: par. 0101).
Jeong and Han are in the corresponding field of (meth)acrylic based adhesive films for use in display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the isocyanate curing agent with a metal chelate curing agent or add a metal chelate curing agent to the adhesive film of Jeong, in the claimed proportions, to provide sufficient curing to the adhesive film to provide the necessary adhesive strength for use in optical devices as taught by Han.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot as the arguments do not apply to the updated rejection above.
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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights