DETAILED ACTION
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata et al. (US 20140104519).
Murata discloses polarizing plate with oriented protective layers. Concerning claim 1, Murata discloses an oriented polyester film as a protective layer, having a thickness of 50 microns and is stretched longitudinally 1.0 to 2.0 times and 4.0 times transversely, resulting in a refractive index in the bending direction (Nx) of 1.593 to 1.617, refractive index in the folding direction (Ny) of 1.680 to 1.698, and a refractive index in the thickness direction (Nz) of 1.502 to 1.513 (Table 1; Films A-D, F, H, and I). With respect to the density and the properties as claimed in claim 2, given that the films are formed from the same materials and in the same manner as that disclosed in the specification, the properties as claimed would be met by the films of Murata. Concerning claim 3, the film can further include an adhesive layer for attaching the layer to a polarizing film (para. 0057-0084). In regards to claim 4, the films as shown in Table 1 have a 3215 to 10200 (Table 1; Films A-D, F, H, and I).
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 20140104519) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20080233312).
Murata discloses the above, including the thickness of the adhesive is 10 microns or less, which overlaps and includes the claimed range (para. 0086). The polarizer plate can further include at least one hard coating (para. 0091). With respect to claim 7, since the polyester film is stretched in the same ratios in the machine and transverse directions and is of the same material, the polyester film would have the claimed moduli of elasticity in the directions as specified. However, Murata is silent to the positioning of the hard coating and the thickness thereof.
Nakamura discloses a polarizing plate protective film. With respect to hard coat, Nakamura discloses an embodiment (FIG. 1B) that comprises a polyester protective layer (element 1) with a hard coat (element 3) on one side of the polyester protective layer and an adhesive layer (element 2) disposed on the other surface of the polyester protective layer, wherein the hard coat has a thickness of 1 to 30 microns (para. 0038-0072). Since the material, thickness, and hardness are the same as that claimed and disclosed, wherein the layer is in the same position as that disclosed, the haze would be within the claimed range. The functional layer provides improved mechanical properties to the protective laminate (para. 0063-0072). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the hard coat in the position as claimed and have the thickness as claimed, in order to achieve the above properties.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 20140104519) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20080233312) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 20150369981).
Murata and Nakamura disclose the above but are silent to use in a foldable display device.
Takeda discloses a polarizing plate having a similar structure to that claimed which can include a stretched polyester film and a hard coat, wherein the plate is used in a foldable display which can be a smart phone (para. 0002-0095). Such a structure provides polarizing plate that suppresses color change due to bending (para. 0015). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the structure of Murata and Nakamura in a foldable mobile device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11934226. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a polyester film having the claimed refractive indices and density, wherein the film has the same properties and has an adhesive layer and hard coating disposed on the either surface, wherein the film is used in a foldable device.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11899167. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims directed to a polyester film having the claimed refractive indices and density, wherein the film has the same properties and has an adhesive layer and hard coating disposed on the either surface, wherein the film is used in a foldable device.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11926720. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a polyester film having the claimed refractive indices and density, wherein the film has the same properties and has an adhesive layer and hard coating disposed on the either surface, wherein the film is used in a foldable device..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783