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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 09/01/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, and 12-14 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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 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.
Claim 1-2, 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (US 2023/0374219, ‘219 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 12-13, ‘219 discloses an optic film having a yellowness index less than 3.0 (Example 1, Table 2) comprising a polymer resin being a polyimide-amide derived from a first diamine-based compound is 2,2' bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine (Example 1, Table 1), a second diamine-based compound being 3,3’-diaminodiphenylmethane (3DDS)(Example 1, Table 1), a first and second dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA) (It is noted that the claim does not require the first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures, Example 1, Table 1), and a dicarbonyl-based compound being terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) (Example 1, Table 1); wherein the amount of amide repeating unit is higher than 80% based on total number of imide and amide units, satisfying the limitations of present claim 4, and the molar ratio of the first diamine-based compound to second diamine compound can be 75:25 satisfying the limitations of present claim 12 (Example 1, Table 1). ‘219 does not expressly set forth that the optical film satisfying Equation 1 and 2 as recited in the present claims 1 and 2. However, as set forth above, ‘219 discloses an optical film formed from a polyimide-amide polymerized from TFMB, 3DDS, FDA and TPC being majority monomers, which are identical to the monomers used in preparing polyimide-amide of present application (See Examples of the present application); therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the optical film of ‘219 would have possessed all the properties including restoring force and elastic strain index as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See 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 also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II).
Regarding claim 14, ‘219 also discloses that the optical film can be applied on a display panel as a cover window to form a display device (Fig. 2, [0023]-[0024]).
Claim 1-2, 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (US 2023/0375750, ‘750 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 12-13, ‘750 discloses an optic film having a yellowness index less than 3.0 (Example 4, Table 2) comprising a polymer resin being a polyimide-amide derived from a first diamine-based compound is 2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine (Example 4, Table 1), a second diamine-based compound being 3,3’-diaminodiphenylmethane (3DDS) (Example 4, Table 1), a first and a second dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA) (It is noted that the claim does not require the first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures, Example 1, Table 1), and a dicarbonyl-based compound being terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) (Example 1, Table 1); wherein the amount of amide repeating unit is higher than 80% based on total number of imide and amide units, satisfying the limitations of present claim 4, and molar ratio of the first diamine-based compound to second diamine compound can be 75:25 satisfying the limitations of the present claims 12 (Example 4, Table 1).. ‘750 does not expressly set forth that the optical film satisfying Equation 1 and 2 as recited in the present claims 1 and 2. However, as set forth above, ‘750 discloses an optical film formed from a polyimide-amide polymerized from TFMB, 3DDS, FDA and TPC being majority monomers, which are identical to the monomers used in preparing polyimide-amide of present application (See Examples of the present application); therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the optical film of ‘750 would have possessed all the properties including restoring force and elastic strain index as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See 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 also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II).
Regarding claim 14, ‘750 also discloses that the optical film can be applied on a display panel as a cover window to form a display device (Fig. 2, [0028]-[0029]).
Claim 1-2, 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Masui et al (JP 2020109156, of record, IDS 02/10/2025, ‘156 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 12-13, ‘156 discloses an optic film ([0002], [0005]-[0006]-[0012]) comprising a polymer resin being a polyimide-amide derived from a first diamine-based compound is 2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine (Example 2, TFMB, [0192]); a second diamine-based compound being 2,2-bis(4-aminophenyl)hexafluoro propane (Example 2, 6FDAM, [0192]); a first and a second dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (Example 2, 6-FDA, [0192], It is noted that the claims do not require the first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures), and a first dicarbonyl-based compound being bis(trifluoromethyl-biphenyldicarboxylic acid (Example 2, 6FBPDOC, [0192]), and a second dicarbonyl-based compound being oxybis(benzoyl chloride (Example 2, OBBC, [0192]); wherein the amount of amide repeating unit is higher than 80% based on total number of imide and amide units (40.21+5.59+10.17/5.59+5.59+40.21+10.17=90.1 mol%, [0192]), satisfying the limitations of present claim 4, the molar ratio of the first diamine-based compound to second diamine compound can be 90:10 satisfying the limitations of present claim 12 (Example 2. [0192], 11.11/100=90:10), and the weight average molecular weight being 227,000, satisfying present claim 13 ([0192]). ‘156 does not expressly set forth that the optical film satisfying yellow index and Equation 1 and 2 as recited in the present claims 1 and 2. However, as set forth above, ‘156 discloses an optical film formed from a polyimide-amide polymerized from two diamine and two dicarbonyl-based compounds being substantially identical to the monomers used in preparing polyimide-amide of present application (See Examples of the present application); therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the optical film of ‘156 would have possessed all the properties including yellow index, restoring force and elastic strain index as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See 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 also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II).
Regarding claim 14, ‘156 also discloses that the optical film can be applied on a display panel as a front cover to form a display device ([0165]-[0166]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/01/2026 have been fully considered. The rejections over references ‘219 and ‘750 have been maintained for the applicant fails to submit certified English translation of foreign priority documents of present application to perfect priority date.
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 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