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 § 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 1-16 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 claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “when a transmitted yellowness measured by a colorimetry method not using an integrating sphere is regarded as a first transmitted yellowness, and a transmitted yellowness measured by a colorimetry method using an integrating sphere is regarded as a second transmitted yellowness, a value obtained by subtracting the second transmitted yellowness of the stacked body for a display device from the first transmitted yellowness of the stacked body for a display device is 0.4 or more.” However it’s unclear from the language of the claim what value the “transmitted yellowness” is refereeing to as different standards for color measurement disagree on what value a yellowness is given. Clarification on what applicants intends by yellowness is needed. For the purposes of examination the yellowness with be interpreted as the yellowness as “determined from the tristimulus values in the XYZ color system, according to JIS K7373:2006” (See instant application para. [0036]).
Claims 2-16 rejected due to their dependance on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130279001 A1 (Mochizuki).
Regarding claim 1:
Mochizuki discloses a stacked body (See Fig. 1, Mochizuki teaches a transparent stacked body for a solar reflector for the purpose of protecting a sensitive surface (In Mochizuki reflective layer [5]) from weathering, UV damage, and abrasion.) comprising a substrate layer (Fig. 1 Transparent Resin Layer [8]); and a functional layer (Fig. 1, Hardcoat layer [9]),
wherein the functional layer [9] includes a resin (Para. [0143], The hardcoat layer is formed from a curable resin), an organic based ultraviolet absorber, and an inorganic based ultraviolet absorber (Para. [0143], the ultraviolet absorber may be an organic or inorganic or both); and
when a transmitted yellowness measured by a colorimetry method not using an integrating sphere is regarded as a first transmitted yellowness, and a transmitted yellowness measured by a colorimetry method using an integrating sphere is regarded as a second transmitted yellowness, a value obtained by subtracting the second transmitted yellowness of the stacked body for a display device from the first transmitted yellowness of the stacked body for a display device is 0.4 or more. (As the difference in the first transmitted yellowness and the second transmitted yellowness is caused by scattering of the blue wavelengths of light and the scale of according to JIS K7373:2006 is 0-100 a difference of 0.4 or greater requires a small degree of scattering. As inorganic UV absorbers increase the scattering of blue wavelengths of light one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the inorganic UV absorber (See Para. [0145]-[0149]) of Mochizuki to scatter blue light sufficiently to cause a difference between a first transmitted yellowness and a second transmitted yellowness to be 0.4 or more as the inorganic UV absorber of Mochizuki has similar size and mass concentration amount and material (See Para. [0145]-[0149]) to the instant application.)
Mochizuki does not disclose that the stacked body is for a display device (Mochizuki teaches a stacked body for a solar thermal film mirror, See abstract)
However Mochizuki teaches that the stacked body on the film mirror has a functional layer with UV absorbers to protect from UV damage and yellowing. (See para. [0023])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stacked body as taught by Mochizuki for a display device for the purpose of protecting the display from UV damage and yellowing.
Regarding claim 2:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
an average particle size of the inorganic based ultraviolet absorber is 10 nm or more and 100 nm or less. (Para. [0146], The inorganic UV absorber particularly preferably has an average particle size of 10 nm to 100nm.)
Regarding claim 3:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
the inorganic based ultraviolet absorber is unevenly distributed on a surface of the functional layer, on an opposite side surface to the substrate layer. (Para. [0145], the inorganic UV absorber is dispersed to form a film 6 μm thick forming an uneven distribution)
Regarding claim 4
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 3, wherein,
when a content of the inorganic based ultraviolet absorber in the functional layer is 100% by mass, a content of the inorganic based ultraviolet absorber included in a portion from a surface of the functional layer, on an opposite side surface to the substrate layer, to a position half a thickness of the functional layer is 70% by mass or more. (Para. [0145] the inorganic UV absorber is distributed in a film 6 μm thick and para. [0132] shows that the average particle size of the inorganic particles is up to 20 μm. Given that the functional layer must be thicker than the size of the inorganic particles Machizuki implicitly discloses that the inorganic UV absorber is distributed in the half of the functional layer away from the substrate by at least 70% or more.)
Regarding claim 6:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
the functional layer incudes an inorganic particle. (Para. [0131]-[0133], The hardcoat layer may include silica fine particles as an inorganic particle)
Regarding claim 9:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
the functional layer includes a color conditioner. (Para. [0300], The ultraviolet absorber may be combined with a “colorant”.)
Regarding claim 10:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
the substrate is a resin substrate. (Para. [0283]-[0284], the layer [8] is a resin.)
Regarding claim 11:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
the resin substrate includes polyimide based resin. (Para. [0283]-[0284], the layer [8] can be a polyimide resin.)
Regarding claim 13:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
an adhesive layer (Fig. 1, Adhesive Layer [7]) for adhesion is included on the substrate layer [8], on an opposite surface side to the functional layer [9]. (Fig. 1, Adhesive layer [7] is on the side of [8] opposite from [9])
Regarding claim 15:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1, wherein
a second functional layer [6] is included on the substrate layer, on an opposite surface side to the functional layer. (Fig. 1, The second functional layer [6] is an anti-corrosion layer included on the opposite side surface of layer [8] to layer [9])
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130279001 A1 (Mochizuki) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200095414 A1 (Shimizu).
Regarding claim 16:
Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1
However Mochizuki fails to teach or suggest
A display device comprising:
a display panel, and
the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1 placed on an observer side of the display panel.
Shimizu teaches
A display device comprising:
a display panel, and
the stacked body for a display device placed on an observer side of the display panel. (Para. [0003] teaches the use of a stacked body in a display device placed on the observer side for the purpose of protected the display from weathering and abrasion.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stacked body as taught by Mochizuki in the display device of Shizizu for the purpose of protecting the display from weathering and abrasion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130279001 A1 (Mochizuki) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060257760 A1 (Mori et al.).
Regarding claim 5:
Although Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1,
Mochizuki fails to teach or disclose
the organic based ultraviolet absorber is evenly distributed in the functional layer. (Mochizuki is silent on the distribution of organic based ultraviolet absorber in the functional layer.)
Mori teaches a film with an organic ultraviolet absorber (Para. [0045], the ultraviolet absorbing agent includes organic ultraviolet absorbers) wherein
the organic based ultraviolet absorber is evenly distributed in the functional layer. (Para. [0061], The ultraviolet absorber is evenly distributed.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the organic based ultraviolet absorber be evenly distributed in the functional layer as taught by Mori in the stacked body of Mochizuki for the purpose of improving the ultraviolet absorption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7
Although Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 6,
Mochizuki fails to teach or disclose
the inorganic particle is included in the functional layer more than the inorganic based ultraviolet absorber, on a mass basis. (See Para. [0131]-[0133] and [0145]-[0149])
Claim 8 allowable subject matter due to its dependance on claim 7.
Regarding claim 12:
Although Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1,
Mochizuki fails to teach or disclose
an impact absorbing layer is included on the substrate layer, on an opposite surface side to the functional layer, or between the substrate layer and the functional layer. (Mochizuki fails to teach an impact absorbing layer.)
Regarding claim 14:
Although Mochizuki discloses the stacked body for a display device according to claim 1
Mochizuki fails to teach or disclose
a second functional layer is included on the functional layer, on an opposite surface side to the substrate layer. (Mochizuki does not include a second functional layer on the first functional layer, see Fig. 1.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872