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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding Configuration 1, the applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The applicant states that Brunner fails to disclose the use of IPA or CHDM in regard to recycled materials. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Brunner clearly discloses the use of IPA or CHDM in Paragraph 0110. Brunner then continues into Paragraph 0111 to disclose that additionally (referring to the same polyester previously mentioned), “the at least one polyester may be fully biobased polyester”, which is referring to recycled polyester. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Regarding Configuration 2, the applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 11-12, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2009/0168452 A1 of record, “Lee”) in view of Brunner et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0292348 A1 of record, “Brunner”) and Matsuno et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0359085 A1, “Matsuno”).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a display apparatus (Figure 1), comprising:
A liquid crystal panel (Figure 1, liquid crystal panel 1200; Paragraph 0055 discloses liquid crystal); and
A back light unit being disposed under the liquid crystal panel and comprising at least one of optical sheets (Figure 1, back light unit 1100/1000 comprises optical sheets 1000), wherein
At least one of the optical sheets includes at least one of a prism sheet or a diffusion sheet (Paragraph 0054 and Paragraph 0100 discloses diffusion sheets and prism sheets),
The prism sheet including:
A support layer having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (Figures 1-6, support layer 1010 comprising lower surface 1011 and upper surface 1013), the support layer having a base resin (Paragraph 0061); and
Prism patterns on the upper surface of the support layer (Figure 6, prism patterns 1030; Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0100), wherein
The base resin includes a PET and a copolymerized PET (Co-PET) (Paragraph 0061 discloses PET and Co-PET).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the PET is a homo PET and the Co-PET is a recycled copolymerized PET, wherein the recycled Co-PET comprises at least one of isophthalic acid (IPA) and cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM), and wherein foreign substances are included in the base resin, and the foreign substances have a size of 100um or less.
However, Brunner discloses a similar support layer where the PET is a homo PET and the Co-PET is a recycled copolymerized PET (Brunner, Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0112; Paragraph 0115)., wherein the recycled Co-PET comprises at least one of isophthalic acid (IPA) and cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM) (Brunner, Paragraph 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support layer as disclosed by Lee to have particular materials as disclosed by Brunner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing cost while improving ease of separation/recyclability (Brunner, Paragraph 0003).
Further, Matsuno discloses a similar apparatus where foreign substances are included in the base resin, and the foreign substances have a size of 100um or less (Matsuno, Paragraph 0029 discloses foreign substances within the base resin having a size of 1um, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base resin as disclosed by Lee to comprise foreign substances as disclosed by Matsuno. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of performing suitable color conversion and diffusion (Matsuno, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 11.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the base resin comprises 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-PET. However, Lee discloses a general environment of using various materials to form the support layer which would necessitate the base resin to have 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-polymer (Lee, Paragraph 0061). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the wt% is the result-effective variable, and when the wt% is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given display device, the recognized results of optimizing light transmittance are realized. While Lee does not directly disclose the exact wt% of the recycled co-PET, Lee does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the base resin comprises 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-PET for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance, heat resistance, chemical resistance, and mechanical strength.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the diffusion sheet (Lee, Figure 6, diffusion sheet 1010; Paragraph 0008 discloses that the optical sheet serves as a prism sheet and a diffusion sheet) includes:
A second support layer having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (Lee, Figure 6, second support layer 1050/1010, upper surface (bottom of) 1050, lower surface 1013), the second support layer having a second base resin (Figure 6, second base resin 1010); and
A diffusion layer on the upper surface of the second support layer and comprising beads (Lee, Figure 6, diffusion layer 1050; Paragraphs 0077-0078; Paragraph 0069), wherein
The second base resin includes a PET and a co-PET (Lee, Paragraph 0061 discloses PET and Co-PET).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the PET is a homo PET and the Co-PET is a recycled copolymerized PET.
However, Brunner discloses a similar support layer where the PET is a homo PET and the Co-PET is a recycled copolymerized PET (Brunner, Paragraph 0056; Paragraph 0112; Paragraph 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support layer as disclosed by Lee to have particular materials as disclosed by Brunner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing cost while improving ease of separation/recyclability (Brunner, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 16.
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the second base resin comprises 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-PET. However, Lee discloses a general environment of using various materials to form the support layer which would necessitate the second base resin to have 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-polymer (Lee, Paragraph 0061). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the wt% is the result-effective variable, and when the wt% is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given display device, the recognized results of optimizing light transmittance are realized. While Lee does not directly disclose the exact wt% of the recycled co-PET, Lee does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the second base resin comprises 80 wt% or less of the recycled co-PET for the purpose of optimizing light transmittance, heat resistance, chemical resistance, and mechanical strength.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 16.
Lee fails to disclose that the recycled Co-PET of the second base resin comprises at least one of isophthalic acid (IPA) and cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM).
However, Brunner discloses a similar support layer where the recycled Co-PET of the second base resin comprises at least one of isophthalic acid (IPA) and cyclohexane dimethanol (CHDM) (Brunner, Paragraph 0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support layer as disclosed by Lee to have particular materials as disclosed by Brunner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing cost while improving ease of separation/recyclability (Brunner, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 16, wherein at least one of the optical sheets comprises the prism sheet and the diffusion sheet being disposed respectively on and under the prism sheet (Lee, Figure 6, the diffusion sheet 1050 is disposed below the prism sheet 1030).
Claims 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno in further view of Jeong et al (US Publication No.: US 2010/0165247 A1, “Jeong”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the prims sheet further comprises a back coating layer being on the lower surface of the support layer (Lee, Figure 6, back coating layer 1050) and comprising beads and a binder resin for fixing the beads (Lee, Paragraph 0069; Paragraphs 0077-0078).
Lee fails to disclose that the beads are comprised of polymethacrylate (PMMA).
However, Jeong discloses a similar layer where the beads are comprised of polymethacrylate (PMMA) (Jeong, Paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support layer as disclosed by Lee to include PMMA beads as disclosed by Jeong. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving haze value and light transmittance (Jeong, Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Brunner and Matsuno discloses the display apparatus of claim 16.
Lee fails to disclose that the diffusion sheet further comprises a second back coating layer being on the lower surface of the second support layer and comprising beads and a binder resin for fixing the beads, and the beads are comprised of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
However, Jeong discloses a similar display where the diffusion sheet further comprises a second back coating layer being on the lower surface of the second support layer and comprising beads and a binder resin for fixing the beads, and the beads are comprised of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (Jeong, Paragraphs 0040-0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support layer as disclosed by Lee to include PMMA beads as disclosed by Jeong. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving haze value and light transmittance (Jeong, Paragraph 0041).
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights