DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“present specification”) are to the published application PG Pub. 2024/0279398, unless stated otherwise.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, it is unclear from the language of the claim what is meant by the term “TDA.” Further, it is unclear how the TGA weight loss area value (TDA) of the film is measured. For example, over what range of temperatures is the weight loss measured and are there no temperature ranges for which no weight loss of the polymer is measured? Because it is unclear what is meant by the term “TDA” and it is unclear how the TGA weight loss area value (TDA) is measured or even specifically what is meant by the phrase, the claim is indefinite. Further claims 2-10 are indefinite based on their dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 requires an “adhesion” to a hard coating of “5B.” However this term is not supported in the claim and would not be immediately understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Further, while the specification describes in general terms what is meant by “5B” (i.e., “evaluated as best”, described as being cleanly peeled from a test film, see PG Pub. 2024/0279398, [0289], Fig. 16) and that such a test reveals “adhesive strength” it is not clear how this measures a degree of adhesive strength. Rather the method described in the specification appears to described testing for a level of cohesion within either the film or a for specific adhesive, which is not a measure of adhesion. Therefore, this term is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0407521, “Oh”) in view of Chae et al. (US 2016/0024272, “Chae”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Oh teaches a display device ([0011]) that may comprise a window cover ([0011]) that may comprise a polyamide-imide film ([0011]) and a functional layer ([0011]). Oh fails to specifically teach the TGA weight loss area value (TDA) of 0.01%*min/C or less. However, such a feature is known. For example, in the same field of endeavor of polyimide films for use in display devices (e.g., [0005]), Chae teaches that a useful property for a film is to provide a weight loss of less than 0.5 weight% over four hours when raising the temperature of the film from 50C to 400C and that such weight loss is considered substantially low and the film is considered to have good thermal stability ([0226], [0227]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted such thermal stability features as described by Chae for the film of Oh. The Examiner additionally notes that Oh teaches a substantially similar polyamide-imide to that described in the present application. For example, Oh teaches that its polyamide-imide is made by polymerizing a diamine, a dianhydride, and a dicarbonyl (see [0059]; and see [0092] of present application PG Pub. 2024/0279398; hereafter this PG Pub. will be used as the citation copy for the present application). Oh teaches similar molar ratios of dianhydride and dicarbonyl compounds ([0060]; present specification [0145]). Oh teaches substantially similar diamine compounds (see Oh [0066] – [0076], corresponding closely to [0095] – [0105] of present application). Oh teaches substantially similar dianhydride compounds ([0085]; present specification at [0114]). Oh teaches the polyimide may form a repeating unit represented by substantially similar components ([0088]; present specification at [0117]). Oh teaches substantially similar dicarbonyl compounds ([0092] – [0112]; present specification at [0121] – [0131]). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been in possession of a substantially similar polyamide-imide to that claimed upon considering the available prior art. The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites properties that must be derivative of the structure of the chemical composition of the claimed film and the process for making both the composition and the film itself. As described above, the films described by the applications are substantially similar. Therefore, the film of Oh would be expected to be capable of providing a TGA weight loss area value (TDA) of 0.01%*min/C or less.
Regarding claim 5, as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 10, Oh teaches a chemically substantially similar polyamide-imide film having substantially similar mechanical and optical properties as that of the present invention (please see discussion of similar polyamide-imide in claim 1, above, and discussion of similar properties including haze properties in claim 10, below). Therefore, because the film of modified Oh is chemically substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and the modification of the film so as to have good thermal stability properties would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan, the film would be expected to have substantially similar adhesive values to those presently claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 10, Oh teaches a chemically substantially similar polyamide-imide film having substantially similar mechanical and optical properties as that of the present invention (please see discussion of similar polyamide-imide in claim 1, above, and discussion of similar properties including haze properties in claim 10, below). Therefore, because the film of modified Oh is chemically substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and the modification of the film so as to have good thermal stability properties would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan, the film would be expected to have substantially similar change in haze values under the claimed testing conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Oh additionally teaches that the film may comprise a polyamide-imide based polymer wherein the imide-based repeat unit and an amide-based repeat unit in on the presently claimed molar range. Oh teaches that the amide unit may read on, for example, Formula B, ([0121]) and the imide group may read on Formula A ([0121], and see [0064], describing that the amide compound is derived from a diamine and dicarbonyl, such as described at [0114]) and thus Oh teaches that the molar ratio of imide to amide may be on the range of from 2:98 to 50:50 but is not limited thereto ([0128], [0114] – [0128]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "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). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Oh additionally teaches the film may have a thickness of from 40 to 60 micrometers (e.g., [0140]), a modulus of 5 GPa or more ([0133]), a transmittance of 80% or more ([0130]), a haze of 1% or less ([0131]), and a yellow index of less than 5 ([0132]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Chae as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Auman et al. (US 2020/0216614, “Auman”).
Regarding claims 2-4, while modified Oh teaches that the film should have good thermal stability, modified Oh fails to specifically teach the Tw, Td1, or Td5 of the film. However, in the same field of endeavor of polyimide films for use in display devices ([0003]), Auman teaches that a 1% TGA weight loss temperature is greater than 450C is suitable for preparing a film having good thermal stability (and thus a Td5 of greater than 420C, [0020] – [0025], [0037], [0090]). Because Auman teaches that a 1% TGA weight loss temperature is greater than 450C, it would be expected that such a film would possess a first weight loss of greater than 290C (e.g., Auman, [0037]; and see Chae [0226], [0227]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted a 1% TGA weight loss temperature is greater than 450C as a suitable thermal stability measure for a film for use in display devices (Auman, [0020] – [0025], [0037], [0090]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Chae as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Dannhauser et al. (US 2017/0028688, “Dannhauser”)
Regarding claim 9, Oh fails to specifically teach the surface tension of the polyamide-imide film. As described in the rejection of claims 1 and 10, Oh teaches a chemically substantially similar polyamide-imide film having substantially similar mechanical and optical properties as that of the present invention (please see discussion of similar polyamide-imide in claim 1, above, and discussion of similar properties including haze properties in claim 10, below). Therefore, because the film of modified Oh is chemically substantially similar to that of the claimed invention and the modification of the film so as to have good thermal stability properties would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan, the film would be expected to have substantially similar surface tension values to those presently claimed. Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of polyamide films ([0003] – [0006], [0040]), Dannhauser teaches that it is known to have a film having a surface energy of less than 50 dyn/cm in order to ensure that the material may accept an ink (Dannhauser, [0040], [0041]) and thus the adoption of such a surface energy would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill int eh art at the time of filing.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Park et al. (US 2022/0227964) discloses a similar polyamide-imide film and is believed to be owned by the same entity.
Jin et al. (US 2019/0016092) discloses a polyamide-imide film and adhesive properties therefore (e.g., [0018], [0001] – [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights