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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Yoon et al. teach an adhesive film (page 1, paragraphs [0006], [0007]) comprising a single adhesive layer (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising an acrylic polymer (page 2, paragraphs [0023]) and an ultraviolet light absorber comprising a salicylate (page 5, paragraphs [0053], [0054]). The ultraviolet light absorber of Yoon et al. is the same as the claimed salicylate ultraviolet light absorber. Therefore, the absorber is capable of absorbing in a wavelength range between 320 nanometers and 390 nanometers. Yoon et al. teach wherein the single adhesive layer has first and second opposing major surfaces (page 1, paragraph [0007], Fig. 1).
Yoon et al. do not disclose wherein the first and second opposing major surfaces each have an elastic modulus that is higher than an elastic modulus of the core, or wherein the first and second opposing major surfaces have an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of the core. However, Yoon et al. teach wherein an elastic modulus of the of the adhesive may vary along a thickness direction (page 1, paragraph [0008]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in elastic modulus involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the elastic modulus of the surfaces and core of Yoon et al. in order to prevent light leakage and provide durability (Yoon et al., page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon et al. do not disclose wherein the elastic modulus of the first major surface is in a range from 90 percent to 110 percent of the elastic modulus of the opposing second major surface. However, Yoon et al. teach wherein an elastic modulus of the of the adhesive may vary along a thickness direction (page 1, paragraph [0008]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in elastic modulus involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the elastic modulus of the surfaces and core of Yoon et al. in order to prevent light leakage and provide durability (Yoon et al., page 1, paragraphs [0008], [0010]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yoon et al. teach wherein the single adhesive layer further comprises at least one photoinitiator of acetophenone (page 5, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Yoon et al. teach wherein the ultraviolet light absorber is present in an amount of 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the acrylic polymer or 0.1 to 10 parts by weight of 100 parts by weight of the active energy beam polymerization compound, but the amount is not limited thereto (page 5, paragraph [0055]).
Yoon et al. do not disclose wherein the ultraviolet light absorber is present in the adhesive film in an amount in a range from 0.1 percent by weight to five percent by weight, based on the total weight of the adhesive film. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of ultraviolet light absorber in consideration of a curing condition or desired characteristics such as an elastic modulus or peel strength (Yoon et al., page 5, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Yoon et al. teach wherein the single adhesive layer has a thickness in range of 0.001 to 100 µm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from 25 micrometers to 1600 micrometers (page 7, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Yoon et al. teach wherein the acrylic polymer is crosslinked (page 3, paragraph [0036], page 4, paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon et al. teach wherein the single adhesive layer has a thickness in range of 0.001 to 100 µm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from 25 micrometers to 260 micrometers (page 7, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 17, Yoon et al. teach wherein the acrylic polymer comprises monomer units of at least one alkyl acrylate having 4 to 16 carbon atoms (page 2, paragraphs [0024], [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon et al. teach wherein the acrylic polymer comprises monomer units of at least one of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate or 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate (page 2, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Yoon et al. teach wherein the acrylic polymer further comprises monomer units of at least one of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic anhydride or itaconic acid (page 3, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608) in view of Katami et al. (WO2017/111034, see machine translated version).
Yoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 7, Yoon et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one photoinitiator has an absorbance in a range from 400 nanometers to 500 nanometers. However, Katami et al. teach an adhesive film (page 2, paragraphs 3 and 5) comprising an acrylic polymer (page 2, paragraphs 5 and 6), an ultraviolet absorber (page 2, paragraph 5) and a photoinitiator (page 8, paragraph 4), wherein the photoinitiator has an absorbance of 400 nm or more which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of from 400 nanometers to 500 nanometers (page 8, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photoinitiator absorbance of Yoon et al. to that of Katami et al. in order to provide sufficient polymerization despite having an ultraviolet absorber (Katami et al., page 8, paragraph 5).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608) in view of Tsunashima et al. (JP2021-024999, machine translated version).
Yoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 11, Yoon et al. fail to teach wherein the single adhesive layer an optically clear adhesive. However, Tsunashima et al. teach an adhesive film (paragraph [0006]) comprising an adhesive layer comprising an acrylic polymer (paragraph [0009]), wherein the adhesive layer is a optically transparent (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an optically transparent adhesive in Yoon et al. as that of Tsunashima et al. in order to be able to display clear images under various use environments (Tsunashima et al., paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon et al. teach wherein the single adhesive layer is foamed. However, Tsunashima et al. teach an adhesive film (paragraph [0006]) comprising an adhesive layer comprising an acrylic polymer (paragraph [0009]), wherein the adhesive layer is comprising a foaming agent (paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a foaming agent in the adhesive of Yoon et al. as that of Tsunashima et al. in order to provide a foamed adhesive (Tsunashima et al., paragraph [0062]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608) in view of Palasz (US Patent Application No. 2018/0051194).
Yoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Yoon et al. fail to teach wherein the acrylic polymer further comprises a pendent benzophenone group. However, Palasz teaches an adhesive film comprising an adhesive layer (page 1, paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0013]) comprising an acrylic polymer (page 1, paragraph [0010]), wherein the acrylic polymer comprises a pendent benzophenone group (page 2, paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pendent benzophenone group of Palasz with the acrylic polymer of Yoon et al. in order to promote crosslinking of the polymer chains (Palasz, page 2, paragraph [0026]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608) in view of Kimura et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0157387).
Yoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15, Yoon et al. fail to an automotive display comprising the adhesive film. However, Kimura et al. teach a car display (page 15, paragraph [0146]) comprising an adhesive film (page 2, paragraph [0013]) comprising an acrylic polymer (page 2, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive film of Yoon et al. in an car display as that of Kimura et al. because they both comprise a liquid crystal display device and such a device provides use in a car display (Yoon et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]; Kimura et al., page 15, paragraph [0146]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0178608) in view of Yamabayashi et al. (JP2014-196377, see machine translated version).
Yoon et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 20, Yoon et al. fail to an article, wherein the article is a mobile telephone, a mobile game console, an electronic reading terminal, a mobile music player, a clock, a television, a video camera, a digital camera, a global positioning system device, or a personal computer. However, Yamabayashi et al. teach an article (paragraph [0139]) comprising adhesive film (paragraph [0011]) comprising an acrylic polymer (paragraph [0012]) and an ultraviolet absorber (paragraph [0012]), wherein the article is a mobile phone, a television or a computer (paragraph [0139]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive film of Yoon et al. in an article as that of Yamabayashi et al. in order to provide a use for the adhesive in a display (Yoon et al., page 1, paragraph [0006]; Yamabayashi et al., paragraph [0139]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1/20/2026