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
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.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2014/0168770 A1) in view of Shelton (US 2009/0096962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches single layer mixed cellulose ester films (Abstract), wherein said cellulose ester films may be formed from cellulose acetate butyrate ([0038]). The cellulose ester is specifically taught as containing a DSOH ranging from about 0.5 to about 1.3 ([0055]), and therefore the cellulose acetate butyrate is contemplated as having partial substitution (i.e., acetyl and butyryl substituents) alongside hydroxyl groups therein ([0020]). The cellulose acetate butyrate of Wang therefore reads on the claimed limitations requiring pluralities of acetyl, butyryl, and hydroxyl substituents.
The range of DSOH ranging from about 0.5 to about 1.3encompasses the claimed range of “0.6 to 0.8,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Wang differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the particularly claimed ranges of DSAc and DSBu. Wang however specifically incorporates Shelton (US 2009/096962) by reference, indicating that examples of the inventive films are taught therein ([0055]).
Likewise to Wang, Shelton teaches cellulose esters having high DSOH values, useful as optical films in LCD applications (Abstract; Wang additionally indicates that its inventive films are useful for LCDs at, e.g., [0067]). Shelton specifically teaches, inter alia, the range of DSOH mentioned by Wang ([0037]), and more specifically teaches cellulose acetate butyrate polymers wherein inter alia the DSOH may range from 0.6 to 0.8 and the DSAc may range from 2.0 to 2.25 ([0043]). Shelton states that the DSBu of the polymer is calculated by the equation DSBu = DSmax – DSAc – DSOH ([0044]) and teaches that DSmax is 3.0 ([0043]). Shelton specifically exemplifies this calculation by using the upper and lower numbers referenced by each of the DSAc and DSOH ranges ([0044]). Within the polymers of Shelton wherein DSmax =3.0, DSOH = 0.6-0.8, and DSAc = 2.0-2.25, DSBu therefore ranges from about 0 to about 0.4. In each case, these ranges are identical to, overlap, or encompass their respectively claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06), Wang specifically incorporates the polymers of Shelton by reference ([0055]), and Shelton teaches its inventive polymers as suitable for the same purpose as what is contemplated by Wang (i.e., films for use in LCD applications). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the DSOH, DSAc, and DSBu ranges taught by Shelton within the cellulose acetate butyrate polymers of Wang.
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Wang in view of Shelton teaches a cellulose acetate butyrate wherein DSOH = 0.6-0.8, DSAc = 2.0-2.25, and DSBu = 0-0.4. the sum of DSBu and DSAC may therefore range from about 2.0 to about 2.65, which encompasses the claimed range of “from 2.0 to 2.4,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, as described above, Wang in view of Shelton teaches a cellulose acetate butyrate wherein, DSAc = 2.0-2.25, which encompasses the claimed range of “from 2.1 to 2.2,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, as described above, Wang in view of Shelton teaches a cellulose acetate butyrate wherein DSOH = 0.6-0.8, which encompasses the claimed range of “from 0.6 to 0.7,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches that the inventive films are waveplates having reversed optical dispersion ([0075]). Furthermore, Wang teaches that quarter waveplates can be used to form broadband quarter waveplates within LCD applications ([0073] and Figure 5 on Sheet 5). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form a quarter waveplate from the inventive reversed optical dispersion waveplate for LCD purposes.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches that a single layer film of layer B (the same layer referenced within the teachings above) has an Re(550) ranging from about 10 nm to about 350 nm, an Rth(550) ranging from about -100 nm to -400 nm, an ARe ranging from about 0.97 to 1.1 (wherein ARe is equal to Re (450) / Re (550), c.f. [0009]), and a BRe ranging from about 0.97 to 1.05 (wherein BRe is equal to Re (650) / Re (550), c.f. [0009]) ([0068]), wherein these values are provided at film thicknesses of 30 to 120 microns ([0071]). In each case, these values encompass/overlap their respectively claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Wang does not teach the particular haze percentage for layers “B” within the invention; however, as described above, the particular film of Shelton is incorporated into the composition of Wang. Shelton further teaches that the inventive films have no more than 0.6 percent haze ([0120]), which falls within the claimed range of “less than 1%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Alternatively, the formulation of Wang as modified meets all of the claimed compositional limitations and meets a substantial listing of other materials properties including thickness and light retardation values. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed haze characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in the films of Wang as modified and as applied above.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the uniaxial/biaxial stretching of the films ([0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches that the inventive films are stretched in ratios of 1.0 to 2.0 MD and 1.0 to 1.8 TD (p. 26, claims 9 and 10). In each case, these ranges overlap/fall within their respectively claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claims 10-11, Wang teaches the incorporation of from about 5 to about 20 wt% of a plasticizer (p. 26, claim 1) which falls within the claimed range of “5 to 25 wt%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Wang further teaches that the plasticizer may comprise inter alia triphenyl phosphate (p. 27, claim 15).
Regarding claim 12, Wang as modified is silent with regard to the biodegradability of the inventive films. Nevertheless, Wang as modified and as applied above results in a film which is structurally identical to the claimed film, containing all of the same components in all of the claimed amounts. Furthermore, the films of Wang as modified meet all of the other claimed physical properties including film thickness, haze, and light retardation properties, as described above. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed biodegradation characteristic will therefore necessarily be present in the film of Wang as modified, and as applied above.
Regarding claim 17, as described in the rejection of claim 1, above, Wang as modified teaches a mixed cellulose ester which meets all of the claimed limitations within “(A).” Furthermore, as described above, Wang teaches the incorporation of from about 5 to about 20 wt% of a plasticizer (p. 26, claim 1) which falls within the claimed range of “5 to 30 wt%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Wang further teaches an optical waveplate formed from layers of the inventive films (Abstract), wherein no additional layers are required (e.g., Abstract Image indicates an optical waveplate comprising layers “A” and “B,” both of which are able to contain the inventive plasticizer). The optical waveplate of Wang as modified therefore reads on the claimed “composition.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights