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 § 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 1, 4-7, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizat et al. (US 2018/0194913 A1) in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 2007/0104896 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Parizat teaches a transparent film comprising a support film/layer and a polymeric coating layer containing a polymer on the support layer. (Abstract). Parizat teaches the support layer can comprise triphenyl phosphate, an ester compound having a pKa of at least one hydrolysate of the ester compound is 2.5 or less. (Paragraph 0050-0051). Parizat teaches the triphenyl phosphate can be added in amounts of 12 or less mass% in the support film/layer. (Paragraph 0190). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Parizat does not specifically teach the surface haze of the cover film is 0.5 to 50%.
Matsunaga teaches optical films for protection (Abstract), where the film comprises a polymer layer and a support layer. (Claim 1 of Matsunaga). Matsunaga teaches the film can have a surface haze of 0 to 12% (Paragraph 0068). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Matsunaga teaches this ensures ensure proper contrast and black color when viewing through the protective film (Paragraph 0068). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in to ensure the surface haze of the cover film of Parizat is within the claimed range to ensure proper color and contrast when viewing through the cover film.
Regarding Claim 4, Matsunaga teaches the internal haze can be 0 to 35%. (Paragraph 0069). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Matsunaga teaches this internal haze range ensures proper viewing angles without ruining contrast. (Paragraph 0069) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in to ensure the internal haze of the cover film of Parizat is within the claimed range to ensure proper viewing angles and contrast when viewing through the cover film.
Regarding Claim 5, Parizat teaches the triphenyl phosphate can be added in amounts of 12 or less mass% to the support. (Paragraph 0190). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, Parizat teaches the polymer layer comprises a plasticizer. (Claim 17 of Parizat).
Regarding Claim 7, Parizat teaches the film can be used a slide film for microscopy, (Abstract) which means it can be used to cover a test subject on a substrate (covering a sample on a microscope slide).
Regarding Claims 17-19, Parizat teaches the film can be used a slide film for microscopy, (Abstract) which means it can be used to cover a test subject on a substrate (covering a sample on a microscope slide).
Claims 2, 3, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizat and Matsunaga, in further view of Moriuchi (JP 2011-232683 A).
Regarding Claim 2, 3, and 8, Parizat and Matsunaga do not teach the Rz of a surface of the polymer layer on a side opposite to the support is 0.1 to 30 microns or RSm of a surface of the polymer layer on a side opposite to the support is 5 to 500 microns.
Moiruchi teaches an optical film comprising a polymer layer formed on a support (Fig. 1). Moriuchi teaches having the Rz of a surface of the polymer layer on a side opposite to the support be 0.03 to 0.2 microns (Paragraph 0064) and the RSm of a surface of the polymer layer on a side opposite to the support be 50 to 200 microns. (Paragraph 0065). These overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Moriuchi teaches having this roughness improves the visibility through the film by reducing glare. (Paragraph 0064-0065). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the Rz and RSm of Parizat to the claimed range to improve visibility through the film due to antiglare.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsunaga teaches the internal haze can be 0 to 35%. (Paragraph 0069). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Matsunaga teaches this internal haze range ensures proper viewing angles without ruining contrast. it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in to ensure the internal haze of the cover film of Parizat is within the claimed range to ensure proper viewing angles and contrast when viewing through the cover film.
Regarding Claim 10, Parizat teaches the triphenyl phosphate can be added in amounts of 12 or less mass% to the support. (Paragraph 0190). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, Parizat teaches the polymer layer comprises a plasticizer. (Claim 17 of Parizat).
Regarding Claim 12, Parizat teaches the film can be used a slide film for microscopy, (Abstract) which means it can be used to cover a test subject on a substrate (covering a sample on a microscope slide).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsunaga teaches the internal haze can be 0 to 35%. (Paragraph 0069). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Matsunaga teaches this internal haze range ensures proper viewing angles without ruining contrast. it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in to ensure the internal haze of the cover film of Parizat is within the claimed range to ensure proper viewing angles and contrast when viewing through the cover film.
Regarding Claim 14, Parizat teaches the triphenyl phosphate can be added in amounts of 12 or less mass% to the support. (Paragraph 0190). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15, Parizat teaches the polymer layer comprises a plasticizer. (Claim 17 of Parizat).
Regarding Claim 16, Parizat teaches the film can be used a slide film for microscopy, (Abstract) which means it can be used to cover a test subject on a substrate (covering a sample on a microscope slide).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights