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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/2/2024.
Amendments to the specification, filed 4/2/2024, is/are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 4/23/2024, 1/29/2025, 11/4/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the OLED display panel (claims 13-14) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence is largely devoted to purported merits and advantages of the invention (“improving…”,”exhibiting excellent visual appreciation, excellent hardness, and excellent heat-resistance”), which is improper per MPEP guidelines (§ 608.01(b): “The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is further objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
On pg. 1, line 10, “the appearance visual appreciation” is ungrammatical and has no clear meaning.
On pg. 1, line 17, “improving [the problem]” is improper and should read “fixing”, “solving”, “addressing”, or similar.
On pg. 1, lines 18-19, “exhibiting excellent visual appreciation” has no clear meaning in its current context.
On pg. 2, line 24, there is a comma missing after “27 % or more”
On pg. 5, line 10, “2-methylhepsyl acrylate” does not appear to be proper chemical nomenclature
On pg. 12, line 9, the phrase “relatively implement the haze” has no clear meaning
On pg. 13, lines 18-19, it is not clear what either “the attaching process” or “the reference line” are
On pg. 15, lines 5 and 7, it is not clear why there are apparently two different variables (H1 and H3) assigned to the same quantity (see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below)
On pg. 15, lines 22-26, the entire sentence/paragraph (“As the polarizer…”) is syntactically malformed and it lacks clear meaning
On pg. 27, lines 4-6, “When the polarizing plate was pulled… [the distance] at which the polarizing plate was pushed…” does not describe the procedure for measuring creep displacement clearly. Pushing and pulling are two different/opposing actions; applying both terms to the same mechanics in such a manner is unclear. Applicant is also advised that “glass pulling distance” is not a standard technical term in English usage, and that such nonstandard terminology should be clearly described/defined.
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, lines 8 and 10 assign two different variables (H1 and H3) to what appears to be a single quantity (“haze of the polarizing plate at a temperature of 25°C”). It is therefore unclear whether they are meant to refer to the same measurement, or whether there are supposed to be two haze measurements at 25°C that are physically and numerically distinct from one another. For examination purposes, H-1- and H-3-- - are interpreted to represent the same quantity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al (KR 20100058462 A, hereinafter “Kawamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 33-35) a polarizing plate (composite polarizing plate 11) comprising a polarizer (1) and a scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 6 “contains a light-diffusing [i.e. scattering] agent” and “is a light-diffusing pressure-sensitive adhesive layer” – ¶s 34-35) present on one side of the polarizer (1), wherein:
the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 6) has a storage elastic modulus of 120,000 Pa or more at a temperature of 25°C (¶ 34: “storage elastic modulus of... preferably 0.15 to 10 MPa at 23°C and 80°C”) and a frequency of 1 rad/sec(= 1 Hz; see also ¶ 117), and
the polarizing plate (composite polarizing plate 11) has a haze of 12% or more (¶ 35: “haze value of 5% or more”).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 6) comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive resin and beads (¶ 56: “first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (6)… formed by an adhesive material containing an adhesive resin and a light-diffusing agent”; ¶s 73-75: “The light diffusing agent… may be fine particles…Examples of fine particles made of organic compounds include melamine beads… polymethyl acrylate beads…”).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 2.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 6) comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive resin (“¶ 56: “first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (6)… formed by an adhesive material containing an adhesive resin”), and the pressure-sensitive adhesive resin has an IPN (interpenetrating network) cross-linked structure (see also ¶s 57-71, 85-86, detailing adhesive resin’s two-component (A)/(B) network that is “crosslinked instantly and homogeneously”).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 3.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the IPN cross-linked structure comprises:
a first cross-linked structure (i.e. component (A)) formed by a cross-linking reaction of a cross-linkable polymer (¶s 57-58: “acrylic copolymers… having crosslinking points”) and a polyfunctional cross-linking agent (¶ 62: “crosslinking is sufficiently achieved through reaction with the crosslinking agent described later”; ¶ 79: “crosslinking agents include polyisocyanate compounds…”) and
a second cross-linked structure (i.e. component (B)) formed by a polymerization reaction of a radically polymerizable compound (¶ 63: “the active energy ray-curable compound used as component (B) is preferably a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer” which are typically polymerizable using free-radical techniques including active energy rays – e.g., ultraviolet or electron beam as in ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 4.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the difference (A-B) between the refractive index (A) of the cross-linkable polymer (forming the adhesive resin) and the refractive index (B) of the beads (“light diffusing agent”) is in a range of 0.05 to 0.1 (“usually 0.01 or more” – ¶ 73).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 2.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the beads comprise a silicone resin (see ¶ 75).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 2.
Kawamura further 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 (¶ 78: “1 to 40 wt% is preferable… with respect to the adhesive resin”).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a thickness in a range of 15 μm to 25 μm (¶ 93: “thickness… in the range of 1 to 40 μm”).
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura further discloses the further comprising a polarizer protective film (transparent protective layer 2) present on one or both sides of the polarizer (1). (see FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura also discloses (see FIG. 1) the further comprising a retardation layer (phase difference plate 5) between the polarizer (1) and the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 7). (Note: all limitations of claim 1 above apply equally to both first/second pressure-sensitive adhesive layers 6/7; see ¶s 34-35.)
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura discloses an OLED (organic light emitting diode) display device comprising an OLED display panel and the polarizing plate (composite polarizing plate 11) of claim 1 disposed on one side of the OLED display panel. (Kawamura is directed to polarizing plates for organic electroluminescent (EL) displays – equivalently known as organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays; see ¶s 2-3, 27 and ¶s 112-113 accompanying FIG. 3, noting that “the composite polarizing plate is also effectively used in… organic EL displays” as an alternative to the liquid crystal cell 30 labeled in FIG. 3)
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura discloses the OLED display device according to claim 13.
Kawamura further discloses wherein the polarizing plate (composite polarizing plate 11) is disposed on the light emission side of the OLED display panel (see again ¶s 2-3, 27 and ¶s 112-113 accompanying FIG. 3. Note that Kawamura’s composite polarizing plate 11 will be located on a light emitting side of the emissive display in order to serve its functions – per ¶ 35: preventing blurriness, ensuring uniform brightness, improving visibility).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al (KR 101202532 B1, hereinafter “Kim”) .
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a glass pushing distance measured at 800 gf for 1000 seconds in a range of 150 μm to 210 μm.
Kawamura and Kim are commonly related to adhesives for polarizing plates.
Kim discloses wherein the scattering pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a glass pushing distance measured at 800 gf for 1000 seconds in a range of 150 μm to 210 μm. (Kim provides adhesive compositions whose “pushed distance” Δx = 200 μm to 600 μm when a load of 1000gf is applied for 1000 seconds; see general formula 1 on pg. 7. Note the overlap between Kim’s Δx ∈ [150,210]μm range and Applicant’s [150,210]μm range may only tend to improve upon reducing Kim’s 1000 gf load to approach Applicant’s 800 gf load – i.e. Kim’s pushed, or creep, distance should also reduce modestly when subject to a lighter load.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kawamura and Kim, in order to provide resilient adhesives with good durability, reliability, and cuttability under high temperature/humidity conditions (Kim pgs. 6-7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shin et al (US 20160018564 A1, hereinafter “Shin”) and Kodama et al (US 20130057955 A1, hereinafter “Kodama”).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1.
Kawamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the polarizing plate has a haze change rate ΔHa of Equation 1 after resisting heat and a haze change rate ΔHb of Equation 2 after resisting moisture and heat of 2% or less, respectively:
[Equation 1] ΔHa =(H1-H2)/H1 x 100%
[Equation 2] ΔHb= (H3-H4)/H3 x 100%
wherein, in Equation 1, H1 is the haze of the polarizing plate at a temperature of 25°C, and H2 is the haze of the polarizing plate after storage at a temperature of 80°C for 500 hours; and in Equation 2, H3 is the haze of the polarizing plate at a temperature of 25°C, and H4 is the haze of the polarizing plate after storage at a temperature of 60°C and 90% relative humidity for 500 hours.
Kawamura and Shin are commonly related to polarizing plate layers.
Shin discloses wherein the polarizing plate has a haze change rate ΔHa of Equation 1 after resisting heat of 2% or less:
[Equation 1] ΔHa =(H1-H2)/H1 x 100%
wherein, in Equation 1, H1 is the haze of the polarizing plate at a temperature of 25°C, and H2 is the haze of the polarizing plate after storage at a temperature of 80°C for 500 hours.
(See ¶s 4-20; Shin discloses that suppressing migration of UV absorbers in polarizing plates can, after sustained temperatures of 85°C for 1000 hours, produce haze variations (corresponding to ΔHa) of ≤ 5%, which encompasses the claimed range. Examiner notes as a simple matter that such suppressed motion more generally reflects mechanical strength, thermal stability, and heat resistance – as similarly accounted for by Kawamura (¶s 46, 57, 109).)
Kawamura and Kodama are commonly related to polarizing plate layers.
Kodama discloses wherein the polarizing plate has a haze change rate ΔHb of Equation 2 after resisting moisture and heat of 2% or less:
[Equation 2] ΔHb= (H3-H4)/H3 x 100%
wherein, in Equation 2, H3 is the haze of the polarizing plate at a temperature of 25°C, and H4 is the haze of the polarizing plate after storage at a temperature of 60°C and 90% relative humidity for 500 hours. (See ¶s 24-43, 50-56. Kodama provides antiglare films – which function and are composed similarly to the scattering/diffusing adhesive films of Kawamura (¶s 75-76) (i.e. organic fine particles dispersed in acrylic resin-based binders, imparting haze to polarizing plates). Kodama further discusses reducing distortions at the particle-binder interface to reduce microcracks caused by moisture – and as a result, humidity-driven haze variation (corresponding to ΔHb). Following 1000-hour heat+moisture tests at 60°C and 90% RH, Kodama demonstrates haze variations of ≤ 1.5% falling within the claimed range.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Kawamura and Shin, in order to demonstrate heat resistance that is on par with those already achieved in the art, and also to ensure satisfactorily durable optical performance.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Kawamura and Kodama, in order to demonstrate combined heat and moisture resistance that is on par with those already achieved in the art, and also to ensure satisfactorily durable optical performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872