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
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 27, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 203746356).
Wang discloses a multilayer structure comprising a polarizing plate, a glass layer, a display screen where there is good adhesive property (adhesive layer) between the glass layer and filter, where a lower surface of the display screen is set with adhesive on an upper surface of the glass layer and lower part of the glass layer, where the structure comprises a first transparent film layer (optical display) (abstract and claim 1).
Regarding the layers of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the layers, since it has been held that rearranging the layers of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Additionally, although Wang does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 203746356) in view of Kagawa et al (U.S. 2016/0195655).
Wang is taken as above. Wang discloses a multilayer structure comprising a polarizing plate, a glass layer, a display screen where there is good adhesive property (adhesive layer) between the glass layer and filter, where a lower surface of the display screen is set with adhesive on an upper surface of the glass layer and lower part of the glass layer, where the structure comprises a first transparent film layer (optical display) (abstract and claim 1). Wang does not explicitly disclose the bonding layer is formed of a gluing agent. Kagawa teaches adhering means either adhering or gluing. The surface may be adhered to the film through an adhesive layer. Any layers may be used as the adhesive layer as long as the layers include an adhesive or a gluing agent (paragraph 155). Wang and Kagawa are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is adhered multilayer structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the adhesive layers of Wang to have gluing agents, as taught in Kagawa, as Kagawa teaches it is known in the art for adhesive/bonding layers to comprise adhesive or gluing agents. Although Wang and Kagawa do not explicitly disclose the thickness of the adhesive layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claim 2.
Concerning claim 3, Wang discloses a multilayer structure comprising a polarizing plate, a glass layer, a display screen where there is good adhesive property (adhesive layer) between the glass layer and filter, where a lower surface of the display screen is set with adhesive on an upper surface of the glass layer and lower part of the glass layer, where the structure comprises a first transparent film layer (optical display) (abstract and claim 1). Wang and Kagawa do not appear to explicitly teach the elastic modulus, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the multilayer structure is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the adhesive layers of the multilayered structure discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed elastic modulus.
Concerning claim 4, Wang discloses a multilayer structure comprising a polarizing plate, a glass layer, a display screen where there is good adhesive property (adhesive layer) between the glass layer and filter, where a lower surface of the display screen is set with adhesive on an upper surface of the glass layer and lower part of the glass layer, where the structure comprises a first transparent film layer (optical display) (abstract and claim 1). Wang does not explicitly disclose the bonding layer is formed of a gluing agent. Kagawa teaches adhering means either adhering or gluing. The surface may be adhered to the film through an adhesive layer. Any layers may be used as the adhesive layer as long as the layers include an adhesive or a gluing agent (paragraph 155). Wang and Kagawa are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is adhered multilayer structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the adhesive layers of Wang to have gluing agents, as taught in Kagawa, as Kagawa teaches it is known in the art for adhesive/bonding layers to comprise adhesive or gluing agents. Although Wang and Kagawa do not explicitly disclose the thickness of the adhesive layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 5, Wang discloses a multilayer structure comprising a polarizing plate, a glass layer, a display screen where there is good adhesive property (adhesive layer) between the glass layer and filter, where a lower surface of the display screen is set with adhesive on an upper surface of the glass layer and lower part of the glass layer, where the structure comprises a first transparent film layer (optical display) (abstract and claim 1). Wang and Kagawa do not appear to explicitly teach the elastic modulus, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the multilayer structure is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the adhesive layers of the multilayered structure discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed elastic modulus.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemoto et al. (U.S. 20020060772).
Umemoto discloses a multilayer structure comprising a glass plate, a transparent layer with a refractive index lower than that of the glass plate (optical display) (abstract, paragraph 9) along with a liquid crystal layer (paragraph 32). Umemoto discloses a polarizer plate (paragraph 45) along with adhesive/bonding layers (paragraphs 49-50).
Regarding the layers of Umemoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the layers, since it has been held that rearranging the layers of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Additionally, although Umemoto does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Umemoto discloses using suitable adhesive agent for the adhesive/bonding layers (paragraph 49). Although Umemoto does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the adhesive layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 3, Umemoto discloses a multilayer structure comprising a glass plate, a transparent layer with a refractive index lower than that of the glass plate (optical display) (abstract, paragraph 9) along with a liquid crystal layer (paragraph 32). Umemoto discloses a polarizer plate (paragraph 45) along with adhesive/bonding layers (paragraphs 49-50). Umemoto does not appear to explicitly teach the elastic modulus, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the multilayer structure is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the adhesive layers of the multilayered structure discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed elastic modulus.
Concerning claim 4, Umemoto discloses using suitable adhesive agent for the adhesive/bonding layers (paragraph 49). Although Umemoto does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the adhesive layers, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 5, Umemoto discloses a multilayer structure comprising a glass plate, a transparent layer with a refractive index lower than that of the glass plate (optical display) (abstract, paragraph 9) along with a liquid crystal layer (paragraph 32). Umemoto discloses a polarizer plate (paragraph 45) along with adhesive/bonding layers (paragraphs 49-50). Umemoto does not appear to explicitly teach the elastic modulus, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the multilayer structure is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the adhesive layers of the multilayered structure discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed elastic modulus.
Cited Reference
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 4798679 (JP ‘679). JP ‘679 discloses a multilayer structure consisting of a laminated body comprising a polarizing plate, two adhesive layers (paragraph 27) and a bonding layer (paragraph 37). JP ‘679 discloses a liquid crystal display device with optical elements (paragraph 42). However, JP ‘679 does not explicitly disclose a glass layer.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 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 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights