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 § 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 11-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 does not conform to the description set forth in the parent claim. The pressure sensitive adhesive layer would not be directly laminated on the surface of the void-containing layer in the presence of the intermediate layer.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0202170 to Yonezaki et al. (hereinafter “Yonezaki”).
Yonezaki discloses a laminate 10 comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) layer 2 directly laminated to a support substrate 1 (paragraph 48 and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The support substrate is a foam sheet made of a polyurethane foam or polychloroprene rubber foam (paragraph 150). The foam sheet is thus a void-containing layer.
The PSA layer comprises an acrylic polymer as a base polymer (paragraphs 54 and 100). The PSA layer has a surface hardness of 0.3 MPa or greater (paragraph 128). In particular, the PSA layer has a surface hardness of 0.353 MPa, or 0.945 MPa within the claimed range (table 1).
As to claim 3, the PSA layer is comprised of an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent (table 1). The PSA has a gel fraction of 95% or higher (paragraph 125).
As to claims 8 and 9, the acrylic polymer contains a functional group-containing monomer in an amount of 1 to 30 wt% (paragraph 78). The functional group-containing monomer comprises a nitrogen-containing monomer such as N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone, N-vinylpiperidone, and each of which corresponding to the claimed heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer (paragraph 73).
As to claims 15 and 16, Yonezaki discloses a glass unit comprising a glass plate 320, a spacer 340 and the laminate 100 (figure 1E).
PNG
media_image2.png
161
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0223175 to Hattori et al. (hereinafter “Hattori”).
Hattori discloses a laminate comprising a void-containing layer; and a PSA layer directly laminated on one surface or both surfaces of the void-containing layer (paragraph 39).
Hattori discloses that the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent, and the PSA layer has a gel fraction of 80 to 95% (paragraph 25). In particular, the PSA layer has a gel fraction of 90% (table 1, example 1). The acrylic polymer contains 1 to 30 wt% of a heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer including N-acryloyl morpholine, N-acryloyl piperidine and N-acryloyl pyrrolidine (paragraph 91).
Hattori teaches that the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 1.5 to 2.8 million (paragraph 104).
Alternatively, the PSA layer contains 0 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less, corresponding to the claimed range of 100,000 or less (paragraph 28). The PSA layer contains 3-10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (paragraph 28). As shown in table 1, the PSA layer contains 90 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 280,000, and 10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (example 1). This is a clear indication that the PSA layer is free of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more. The zero content of the acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more reads on the claimed range of 10 wt% or less.
Hattori also discloses that an intermediate layer is interposed between the void-containing layer and the PSA layer wherein the intermediate layer is a mixed layer of the void-containing layer and the PSA layer, and bonds the void-containing layer to the PSA layer (paragraph 24). The intermediate layer has a thickness of 50 nm within the claimed range (table 1, example 1).
Hattori asserts that a void retention rate of the void-containing layer exceeds 50 vol% after a heat durability test of maintaining a temperature of 85oC for 500 hours (abstract).
Hattori discloses that the laminate is used in an optical apparatus (paragraph 52).
Hattori does not explicitly disclose the PSA layer having a surface hardness of 0.1 MPa or more and 1 MPa or less.
However, it appears that the PSA layers in the claimed invention and Hattori are made of the same composition. The PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent, and the PSA has a gel fraction of 80 to 95% (paragraph 25). In particular, the PSA has a gel fraction of 90% (table 1, example 1). The acrylic polymer contains 1 to 30 wt% of a heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer including N-acryloyl morpholine, N-acryloyl piperidine and N-acryloyl pyrrolidine (paragraph 91).
Hattori teaches that the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 1.5 to 2.8 million (paragraph 104).
Alternatively, the PSA layer contains 0 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less, corresponding to the claimed range of 100,000 or less (paragraph 28). The PSA layer contains 3-10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (paragraph 28). As shown in table 1, the PSA layer contains 90 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 280,000, and 10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (example 1). This is a clear indication that the PSA is free of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more. The zero content of the acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more reads on the claimed range of 10 wt% or less.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the PSA layer would inherently have a surface hardness in the range from 0.1 to 1.0 MPa as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 3, Hattori discloses that the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent, and the PSA has a gel fraction of 80 to 95% (paragraph 25). In particular, the PSA has a gel fraction of 90% (table 1, example 1).
As to claims 4 and 5, Hattori discloses that the PSA layer contains 0 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less, corresponding to the claimed range of 100,000 or less (paragraph 28). The PSA layer contains 3-10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (paragraph 28).
As to claims 6 and 7, as shown in table 1, the PSA layer contains 90 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 280,000, and 10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (example 1). This is a clear indication that the PSA layer is free of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more. The zero content of the acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more reads on the claimed range of 10 wt% or less.
As to claims 8 and 9, Hattori discloses that the acrylic polymer contains 1 to 30 wt% of a heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer including N-acryloyl morpholine, N-acryloyl piperidine and N-acryloyl pyrrolidine (paragraph 91).
As to claim 10, Hattori discloses that the PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 1.5 to 2.8 million (paragraph 104).
As to claims 11 and 12, Hattori mentions that an intermediate layer is interposed between the void-containing layer and the PSA layer wherein the intermediate layer is a mixed layer of the void-containing layer and the PSA layer, and bonds the void-containing layer to the PSA layer (paragraph 24). The intermediate layer has a thickness of 50 nm within the claimed range (table 1, example 1).
As to claim 13, Hattori does not explicitly disclose the intermediate layer having a storage elastic modulus of 1.0 MPa at 23oC.
However, it appears that the intermediate layers of Hattori and the claimed invention are identical. The intermediate layer is a layer formed by combining a part of the void-containing layer and a part of the PSA layer, and bonds the void-containing layer to the PSA layer (paragraph 24). The intermediate layer has a thickness within the claimed range (table 1). Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the storage elastic modulus of 1.0 MPa at 23oC would inherently be present as like material has like property.
As to claim 14, Hattori discloses that a void retention rate of the void-containing layer exceeds 50 vol% after a heat durability test of maintaining a temperature of 85oC for 500 hours (abstract). Hattori does not explicitly disclose a void retention rate of the void-containing layer exceeds 50 vol% after a heat durability test of maintaining a temperature of 95oC for 1000 hours.
However, it appears that the laminate of Hattori is structurally and compositionally the same as that of the claimed invention. The laminate comprises a void-containing layer; and a PSA layer directly laminated on one surface or both surfaces of the void-containing layer (paragraph 39). The PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer and a crosslinking agent, and the PSA layer has a gel fraction of 80 to 95% (paragraph 25). In particular, the PSA layer has a gel fraction of 90% (table 1, example 1). The acrylic polymer contains 1 to 30 wt% of a heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer including N-acryloyl morpholine, N-acryloyl piperidine and N-acryloyl pyrrolidine (paragraph 91). The PSA layer contains an acrylic polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 1.5 to 2.8 million (paragraph 104).
Alternatively, the PSA layer contains 0 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less, corresponding to the claimed range of 100,000 or less (paragraph 28). The PSA layer contains 3-10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (paragraph 28). As shown in table 1, the PSA layer contains 90 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 280,000, and 10 wt% of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less (example 1). This is a clear indication that the PSA layer is free of an acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more. The zero content of the acrylic polymer having a molecular weight of 30 million or more reads on the claimed range of 10 wt% or less.
An intermediate layer is interposed between the void-containing layer and the PSA layer wherein the intermediate layer is a mixed layer of the void-containing layer and the PSA layer, and bonds the void-containing layer to the PSA layer (paragraph 24). The intermediate layer has a thickness of 50 nm within the claimed range (table 1, example 1). The void retention rate of the void-containing layer exceeds 50 vol% after a heat durability test of maintaining a temperature of 85oC for 500 hours (abstract). The laminate is used in an optical apparatus (paragraph 52).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the void retention rate of the void-containing layer exceeding 50 vol% after a heat durability test of maintaining a temperature of 95oC for 1000 hours would be present as like material has like property.
This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claims 15 and 16, Hattori discloses that the laminate is used in an optical apparatus (paragraphs 1 and 52).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0032113 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter “Kimura”).
Hattori does not explicitly disclose the PSA comprising an acrylic polymer having a polydispersity, Mw/Mn of 3.0 or less.
Kimura, however, discloses an optical PSA layer which excellent in durability and does not cause light leakage even in a narrow frame panel wherein the optical PSA layer is attached to an optical film (abstract). The optical PSA layer comprises an acrylic polymer having a gel fraction of 90% or more, a weight average molecular weight of 1.5-1.8 million, and a polydispersity of 3.0 or less (abstract, and paragraphs 16 and table 1). The acrylic polymer contains 0.1 to 20 wt% of a heterocycle-containing acrylic monomer including N-acryloyl morpholine, N-acryloyl piperidine and N-acryloyl pyrrolidine (paragraphs 22 and 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PSA layer of Hattori having a polydispersity disclosed in Kimura, motivated by the desire to provide a PSA layer high adhesion reliability and durability at high temperature while providing no light leakage even in a narrow flame panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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 at 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 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788