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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mizuno et al (JP 2010285480, of record, ‘480 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8, ‘480 discloses a stacked body for a display device comprising a substrate layer and an antistatic hardcoat layer being a functional layer including fluorine (Fig. 1 and 2, layer 11 and Layer 12, [0016]-[0017], Examples, RS-602 and DAC-HP are fluorine containing antifouling agents , [0060]); wherein the functional layer including antistatic agent which is a conductive polymer, satisfying present claims 4-5 ([0023]-[0035], Examples, the trimethylammonium-based monomers polymerized into ionic conductive polymer after curing). ‘480 also discloses thickness of the hardcoat layer can be 7 microns (Examples), satisfying the present claim 8. ‘480 does not expressly set forth that the antistatic hardcoat layer has surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number as presently claimed. However, since ‘480 discloses a hardcoat layer formed from acrylic-based hardcoat containing an antistatic agent and a fluorine-based antifouling agent, which is substantially identical to the functional layer as disclosed in the present application (See example of present application), it is reasonable to expect that the antistatic hardcoat of ‘480 also possesses the same properties including the surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number in the presently claimed range, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112). In addition, even the prior art ‘480 does not exemplify an embodiment having the same surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number as presently claimed, it is well-known in the art that the antistatic agent is used to reduce surface charge of the coating layer, fluorine-containing agent is used to reduce surface tension (related to frictional force) of the coating layer, thus the amount of these agents are an effective variable in terms of surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number, which can be adjusted to render these properties falling within the presently claimed ranges, if these properties are so desirable. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the antistatic agent and the fluorine-coating agent so as to produce an antistatic hardcoat having surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number falling within the scope of the present claims, without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9-10, ‘480 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘480 also discloses a stacked body including an antireflection layer on the antistatic hardcoat layer (Fig. 2, Layer 13, [0068-[0077]) and a displayer comprising the stacked body and a display panel (Fig. 5, [0088]), wherein adhesives being applied between each layers thus formed adhesive layers, which also function as impact absorbing layers, is a common practice in the art, satisfying present claims 6 and 7.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yousuke et al (WO 2018/180304, of record, ‘304 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8, ‘304 discloses a stacked body for a display device comprising a substrate layer and a antistatic hardcoat layer being a functional layer including fluorine (Fig.4, layer 11 and Layer 12, [0008], [0062], [0142]-[00145], [00149]-[0150], [0281]); wherein the functional layer including antistatic agent which is a conductive polymer, satisfying present claims 4-5 ([0128]-[0129]). ‘304 also discloses the thickness of the hardcoat layer can be 10 microns to 1 micron ([0117], [0288]-[0289]), satisfying present claim 8. ‘480 does not expressly set forth that the antistatic hardcoat layer has surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number as presently claimed. However, since ‘304 discloses a hardcoat layer formed from acrylic-based hardcoat containing an antistatic agent and a fluorine-based antifouling agent, which is substantially identical to the functional layer as disclosed in the present application (See example of present application), it is reasonable to expect that the antistatic hardcoat of ‘480 also possesses the same properties including the surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number in the presently claimed range, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary (See MPEP 2112). In addition, even the prior art ‘304 does not exemplify an embodiment having the same surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number as presently claimed, it is well-known in the art that the antistatic agent is used to reduce surface charge of the coating layer, fluorine-containing agent is used to reduce surface tension (related to frictional force) of the coating layer, thus the amount of these agents are an effective variable in terms of surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number, which can be adjusted to render these properties falling within the presently claimed ranges, if these properties are so desirable. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the antistatic agent and the fluorine-coating agent so as to produce an antistatic hardcoat having surface charge amount, frictional force, and fluorine atom number falling within the scope of the present claims, without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9-10, ‘304 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘304 also discloses the stacked body also including another layer between substrate and functional layer, satisfying present claims 6 and 7 (Fig. 1, layer 13 or 14, [0008], [0154], [0160], Figs. 4-6, layer 15 or resin layer 41, [0191]-[0192], [0198]-[0199]); stacked body including an antireflection layer on the antistatic hardcoat layer (Fig. 11, Layer 104, [0264]); and a displayer comprising the stacked body and a display panel (Fig. 9, [0212]-[0214]).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mizuno et al (US 2010/0296169). Mizuno discloses an antiglare film comprising a substrate base and an antistatic hardcoat layer, wherein the hardcoat layer comprises an acrylic-based resin, a conductive polymer and an antifouling agent such as S-602 and DAC-HP ([0008]-[[0011], [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights