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 § 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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when this claim recites "optical film…having a yellowness index of 3.0”, because the yellow index of an optical film depends upon its thickness; without setting forth the thickness associated with the yellowness index as claimed, the scope of the claimed range has not been clearly apprised. Claims 2-18 are also rejected for depending from claim 1, thus inclusion of its indefinite features.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite because the parameter of restoring force based on Equation 1 and 2 apparently depends upon the temperature at which the modulus and Poission’s ratio being measured, without setting forth the temperature associated with the parameter and elastic strain index as claimed, the scope of the claimed ranges have not been clearly apprised. In addition, in Equation 2, the definition of modulus is not clear. Claims 2-18 are also rejected for depending from claim 1, thus inclusion of its indefinite features.
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 1-18 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 1-13 and 15-18, ‘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 as in the present claims 9 and 15 (Example 1, Table 1), a second diamine-based compound being 3,3’-diaminodiphenylmethane (3DDS) (Example 1, Table 1), a dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA), 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 claims 3 and 4, and the molar ratio of the first diamine-based compound to second diamine compound can be 75:25 satisfying the limitations of present claims 12 and 18 (Example 1, Table 1). The polyimide-amide of ‘219 satisfies all the limitations of present claims 4-11 and 15-17 (it is noted that the claims do not require the first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures). ‘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 possess 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 1-18 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 1-13 and 15-18, ‘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 as in present claims 9 and 15 (Example 4, Table 1), a second diamine-based compound being 3,3’-diaminodiphenylmethane (3DDS) (Example 4, Table 1), a dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA), 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 claims 3 and 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 and 18 (Example 4, Table 1). The polyimide-amide of ‘750 satisfies all the limitations of present claims 4-11 and 15-17 (it is noted that the claim does not require the first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures). ‘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 possess 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]).
Claims 1-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2020/0407506, ‘506 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 15, ‘506 discloses an optic film having a yellowness index less than 3.0 (Examples, Table 1, [0339]) comprising a polymer resin being a polyimide-amide derived from diamine diamine-based compound is 2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine as in present claims 9 and 15 (also named 2,2′-bis(trifluoromethyl)-4,4′-diaminobiphenyl, TFMB, Examples, Table 1, [0339]), a dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA), and a dicarbonyl-based compound being terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) (Examples, Table 1, [00339]); wherein the amount of amide repeating unit is higher than 80% based on total number of imide and amide units (Examples, Table 1); which satisfies all the limitations of present claims 3-9 and 15 (it is noted that the claim does not require the first and second diamine or first and second dianhydride having different chemical structures). ‘506 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, ‘506 discloses an optical film formed from a polyimide-amide polymerized from TFMB, FDA and TPC being majority monomers, which are 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 ‘506 would have possess 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, ‘506 also discloses that the optical film can be applied on a display panel as a cover window to form a display device([0004]-[0008], [0336]).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2020/0407506, ‘506 hereafter) in view of Miyamoto et al (US 2019/0390057, ‘057 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-11 and 15-17, ‘506 discloses an optic film having a yellowness index less than 3.0 (Examples, Table 1, [0339]) comprising a polymer resin being a polyimide-amide derived from diamine diamine-based compound is 2,2'-bis(trifluoromethyl) benzidine as in present claims 9 and 15 (TFMB, Examples, Table 1, [0339]), a dianhydride being 2,2′-bis(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoropropane dianhydride (6-FDA), and a dicarbonyl-based compound being terephthaloyl chloride (TPC) (Examples, Table 1, [00339]); wherein the amount of amide repeating unit is higher than 80% based on total number of imide and amide units (Examples, Table 1). ‘506 does not expressly the polyimide-amide further include a second diamine-based compound satisfying present claims 10-11 and 16-17. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘057 discloses an optical film made from a polyimide-amide, wherein the polyimide-amide can be prepared from either one diamine being TFMB or a combination of TFMB with another aromatic diamine including 4,4’diaminodiphenyl methane ((MDA), 4,4’diaminodiphenyl sulfone (4DDS), 3,3’-diaminodiphenylmethane (3DDS) or 4,4’diaminodiphenyl ether (ODA) ([0062], Example 10), to render a polyimide-amide satisfying all the limitations of the present claims 5-8, and an optical film having similar properties including Elastic modulus, surface hardness and bending resistance (Table 2). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a mixture of diamine-based compound including TFMB with MDA, 4DDS, 3DDS or ODA, to render a polyimide-amide having similar properties; and because the simple substitution of one known element (such as MDA, 4DDS, 3DDS or ODA) for another (part of TFMB) that would provide predictable results (similar optical and mechanical properties in the present case) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan (See MPEP 2143 (B)). The cited prior art 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, modified ‘506 fairly suggests an optical film formed from a polyimide-amide polymerized from TFMB, 3DDS or 4DDS, FDA and TPC being majority monomers, which are 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 prior art optical film would have possess 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 claims 12-13 and 18, modified ‘506 teaches all the limitations of claims 7 and 8, ‘057 also discloses that the molar ratio of first diamine (TFMB) to second diamine (ODA and the like) can be 60:40 (Table 1, Example 9 and 10), satisfying present claims 12 and 18; and the weight average molecular weight can be 70,000 to 450,000 ([0037]), which significantly overlaps the instantly claimed range as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified ‘506 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘506 also discloses that the optical film can be applied on a display panel as a cover window to form a display device([0004]-[0008], [0336]).
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