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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 11) in the reply filed on July 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claims 13 – 17 are withdrawn from consideration.
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(s) 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (JP 2019-006933 A).
*Evidentiary reference ProfPlastic.com
With regard to claim 1, Satoshi et al. teach a film comprising polyimide (paragraphs [0009] – [0010]) and polymethylmethacrylate (i.e., Applicant’s “acryl-based resin”) (paragraph [0085]). In a film plane, the difference of refractive index (ΔN) of the machine direction (MD) (i.e., Applicant’s “first direction, n1”) and transverse direction (TD) (i.e., Applicant’s “second direction, n2”) is 0.02 or more and 0.073 or less (paragraphs [0015] – [0016] & [0117]). It is easy to adjust the difference of refractive index to 0.02 or more via stretching the film at a ratio of 1.5 times or more in the machine direction and/or the transverse direction (paragraphs [0109] – [0110] & [0112] – [0113]).
Satoshi et al. teach working examples of Table 2 wherein n1 in the MD direction ranges from 1.58 – 1.725 and n2 in the TD direction ranging from 1.542 – 1.695. Example 22 has a MD refractive index (n1) = 1.721 and TD refractive index (n2) of 1.695. When these values are inserted into Applicant recited equation, 100 x (1.721 – 1.695)/1.695 = 1.534, which is greater than 1.0. Similar calculations for all the working examples of Satoshi’s Table 2 (wherein ΔN > 0) also satisfy the Applicant’s claimed formula: 100 x (n1 – n2)/n2 ≥ 1.0.
There is no teaching of an acrylate-based resin in the polyimide film of the working examples. However, Satoshi et al. teach polymethylmethacrylate may be added to the film as an additive exhibiting a negative birefringence (paragraph [0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a polyimide film wherein the film comprises polymethylmethacrylate and has a birefringence of 100 x (n1 – n2)/n2 ≥ 1.0.
The film has a haze is preferably 5.0 or less (paragraph [0024]) and a yellowness index is 5.0 or less (paragraphs [0097] & [0101]). The film is “colorless and transparent (paragraphs [0047] & [0101]). Satoshi et al. teach “Colorless and transparent” refers to a total transmittance of 80% or more, haze of 2 or less, and yellow index (YI) of 5.0 or less (paragraph [0101]).
A transmittance of 80% or more as taught by Satoshi et al. includes Applicant’s claimed range of 85% or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2, Satoshi et al. teach the unit represented by formula (A-5) (polyimide resin) may exhibit a glass transition temperature in the range of 250 – 350°C in a polyimide film (paragraph [0046]). An exemplary embodiment of the film has a glass transition temperature of 250°C or higher (paragraph [0106]). Preferred for maintaining high bending resistance at high temperatures (paragraphs [0106] & [0108]).
The preferred embodiment of a film having a glass transition temperature of the film taught by Satoshi et al. is barely outside Applicant’s claimed glass transition temperature range of 110°C or higher and lower than 250°C.
Satoshi et al. teach the glass transition is a preferred embodiment, not a limiting feature.
Based on the teachings of Satoshi et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the glass transition temperature of the film through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired bending resistance and heat resistance of the film. 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 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Satoshi et al. teach the polyimide (Formula 1) can be produced using an acid dianhydride (B) and a diamine (A) as raw materials (paragraph [0027]). The acid anhydride may be any one of formulas (B-1) to (B-4). Structure (B-3) derived from bicycle [222] oct-7-ene-2, 3-tetracarboxylic dianhydride (i.e., “alicyclic tetracarboxylic dianhydride”) (paragraph [0066]). Other acid dianhydride components which may be present include other types of aliphatic tetracarboxylic dianhydride, including cycloalkyl (“alicyclic”) tetracarboxylic acid dianhydride compounds (paragraphs [0070] – [0071]).
For example, the diamine (A) may be formed of A-1 to form “structure A1 portion” and at least one of A-2, A-3, and A-4 to form “structure A2 portion” (paragraphs [0027], [0038] & [0042] – [0043]). A-3 can be derived from cyclohexyldiamine (i.e., “alicyclic diamine”) (paragraphs [0034] & [0040]). Other structural units include 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine (TFMB) (i.e., “fluoroalkyl-substituted benzidines”) (paragraphs [0051] & [0053] – [0054]).
With regard to claim 4, Satoshi et al. teach the composition ratio of the structure A1/A2 is preferably 2/8 to 8/2 in terms of molar ratio (paragraph [0048]). Satoshi et al. teach a “small amount” of a structural unit of fluoroalkyl-substituted benzidine for suppressing the formation of a CT complex between polyimide molecules and to lower the yellowness index (YI) of the film (paragraphs [0050] – [0052]).
Satoshi et al. do not teach an explicit mol% value for said structural unit of fluoroalkyl-substituted benzidine.
However, based on the teachings of Satoshi et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust amount of the fluoroalkyl-substituted benzidine based on a total amount of the diamine through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired suppression of CT complex formation and yellowness index (YI) of the film. 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 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 5, Satoshi et al. teach the fluoroalkyl-substituted benzidine is 2,2’-bis(trifluoromethyl)benzidine (TFMB) (paragraphs [0051] & [0053] – [0054]).
With regard to claim 6, Satoshi et al. teach an embodiment in which B-3, such as bicycle [222] oct-7-ene-2, 3-tetracarboxylic dianhydride (i.e., “alicyclic tetracarboxylic dianhydride”) (paragraph [0066]), may be the only dianhydride (B) present in the polyimide. Therefore, in at least one embodiment taught by Satoshi et al., the total amount of alicyclic tetracarboxylic dianhydride of B-3 is also the total amount of tetracarboxylic dianhydride component (and therefore 100 mol% of the total amount of the tetracarboxylic dianhydride component). may be the only dianhydride component present in the polyimide.
With regard to claim 7, as discussed above, Satoshi et al. teach the acryl-based resin is polymethyl methacrylate. Therefore, the total amount of methyl methacrylate and modified structures of methyl methacrylate is 100 wt% based on an amount of all monomer components in the acryl-based resin.
With regard to claim 8, as discussed above, Satoshi et al. teach the acryl-based resin is polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). As evidenced by *Profplastic, PMMA has a glass transition temperature of about 105°C, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 90°C or higher.
With regard to claim 9, Satoshi et al. teach the polyimide film contains polyimide as a main component in an amount of preferably 50% by mass or more, more preferably 90% by mass or more, based on the total mass of the film (paragraph [0014]). Satoshi et al. teach polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may be added to the film as an additive exhibiting a negative birefringence (paragraph [0085]). Negative intrinsic birefringence reduces yellowness and improves the glass transition temperature of the film (paragraph [0072]).
Satoshi et al. do not teach the weight ratio of polyimide to PMMA.
However, based on the teachings of Satoshi et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to ratio of polyimide and PMMA through routine experimentation in order to achieve a film with the desired birefringence (i.e., ΔN), and thus optimizing the yellowness index and the glass transition temperature of the film. 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 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 10, Satoshi et al. teach a Young’s modulus (i.e., “tensile modulus”) in at least one direction is 3.5 GPa (paragraph [0019]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 4.0 GPa or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 11, Satoshi et al. teach the film is stretch in the MD and/or the TD direction by biaxial stretching (paragraphs [0099] – [0100] & [0109]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 109666251 (A)) (2019).
With regard to claim 9, Satoshi et al. teach the polyimide film contains polyimide as a main component in an amount of preferably 50% by mass or more, more preferably 90% by mass or more, based on the total mass of the film (paragraph [0014]). Satoshi et al. teach polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) may be added to the film as an additive exhibiting a negative birefringence (paragraph [0085]).
Satoshi et al. do not explicitly teach a quantitative amount of the PMMA or a ratio of polyimide to PMMA in the film.
Li et al. teach a flexible polymer film for a touch screen device (pgs. 2 & 5) comprising polyimide and polymethyl methacrylate according to mass ratio of 0.01 – 50:1, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 98:2 to 2:98. This particular mixture has good hardness, good weather resistance, good scratch resistance, good flexibility, and can be used as a flexible cover material (pgs. 2 & 4).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Li et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate polyimide and PMMA into the composition forming the film taught by Satoshi et al. such that the polyimide to PMMA ratio is 0.01:1 to 50:1 for achieving a film that has good hardness, weather resistance, scratch resistance, and flexibility for use as a flexible cover for a display device, such as a touch screen device. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 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 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
