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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication No. 2018/0203174) in view of Shibata et al (US Publication No. 2020/0318011).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a polarizing plate Fig 1-2 comprising a polarizer Fig 1-2, 120 and a scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer Fig 1-2, 110/140 present on one side of the polarizer Fig 1-2, 120, wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage elastic modulus of 70,000 Pa or more at a temperature ¶0048-0049 and 0196 Table 2 and a frequency of 1 rad/sec ¶0186, and the polarizing plate has a haze of 15% or more ¶0196 Table 2. Lee discloses all the limitations but silent on the composition/properties of the adhesive layer and the specific temperature. Whereas Shibata discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage elastic modulus of 70,000 Pa or more and 90,000 Pa or less at a temperature of 25 C. ¶0453 and wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises a pressure- sensitive adhesive resin and beads ¶0436, 0453, 0438; a refractive index of the beads is different from a refractive index of the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive resin ¶0436. Lee and Shibata are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive layer and incorporate the teachings of Shibata to improve device performance.
Regarding claim 2, Shibata discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer comprises a cross-linked structure formed by a cross-linking reaction of the acrylic polymer and a polyfunctional cross-linking agent, and does not comprise a cross-linked structure formed by a polymerization reaction of a radically polymerization compound; and the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer does not comprise a polymerization initiator ¶0422-0445. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata discloses wherein the pressure-sensitive adhesive resin is an acrylic resin¶0430-0436.
Regarding claim 4, Shibata discloses wherein the difference (A-B) between the refractive index (A) of the pressure-sensitive adhesive resin and the refractive index (B) of the beads is in a range of 0.04 to 0.1¶0430-0436.
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses wherein the beads comprise a silicone resin ¶0438.
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses wherein the beads are included in a range of 2 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the pressure-sensitive adhesive resin¶0439.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a thickness in a range of 15 µm to 25 µm ¶0068.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses all the limitations but silent on the glass pushing distance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific glass pushing distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F. 2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F .2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F .2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses comprising a polarizer protective film present on one or both sides of the polarizer ¶0072-0079.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses a retardation layer between the polarizer and the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer¶0097-0102.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses an OLED (organic light emitting diode) display device comprising an OLED display panel and the polarizing plate of claim 1 disposed on one side of the OLED display panel ¶0041.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the polarizing plate is disposed on the light emission side of the OLED display panel ¶0041-0042.
Regarding claim 13, Shibata discloses wherein the refractive index of the beads is in range of 1.415 to 1.425 ¶0436 and 0438-0439.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the polarizing plate has a haze of 20% or more ¶0196 Table 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
