DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In last line of claim, a formula or structure pertaining to the definition “s = 0-2” cannot be located.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, please replace “and (l) one or” with “or (l) one or”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “and hindered-amine” with “or hindered-amine”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim describes a copolymer comprising one or more first monomers and one or more second monomers. A copolymer comprises units derived from said monomers but not the monomers alone. Claim language should be amended to reflect this fact.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (WO 2017/057813).
Example 1 of Ryu et al. discloses a polymer prepared from a composition comprising 3,3ʹ-(((9H-fluorene-9,9-diyl)bis(4,1-phenylene)bis(oxy))bis(1-(phenylthio)propan-2-ol), 3,3ʹ,4,4ʹ-biphenyl tetracarboxylate dianhydride, and phthalic anhydride. The term “high refractive index” is a relative term, and each compound would appear have a high refractive index aromatic core.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inventive polymer is used in photosensitive resin composition which further comprises photoinitiator, surfactant, adhesion aid, antioxidant, and hindered amine light stabilizer. The photosensitive resin composition finds use as a film in a display device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (WO 2017/057813).
The discussion of the prior art from the preceding paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Ryu et al. is silent regarding optical properties recited in instant claim. In view of the fact that prior art material is substantially the same as that described in instant claims, reasonable basis exists to believe that a film prepared therefrom exhibits substantially the same properties under the conditions recited in instant claim. Since the PTO cannot perform experiments, the burden is shifted to the Applicants to establish an unobviousness difference. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Namiki et al. (WO 2018/0171080).
Example 1 of Namiki et al. discloses a polymer prepared from a composition comprising 9,9-bis(4-(2-acryloxyethoxy)phenyl)fluorene, 1,5-dimercapto-3-thiapentane, and diallyl-1,4-napthalene dicarboxylate. The term “high refractive index” is a relative term; compounds 9,9-bis(4-(2-acryloxyethoxy)phenyl)fluorene and diallyl-1,4-napthalene dicarboxylate appear to contain a high refractive index aromatic core. According to the specification, a higher quantity of 1,5-dimercapto-3-thiapentane provides a higher refractive index to the polymer (paragraph [0021]). Thus, it appears that this component qualifies as containing a high refractive index core, as recited in instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights