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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. A preliminary amendment was filed on 05 July 2024 amending claims 13 and 17. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 July 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “The present invention relates to…”. Correction is recommended. See MPEP § 608.01(b), guideline (C).
Drawings
The drawings received on 05 July 2024 are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the claims each refer to a “non-yellowing type isocyanate-based… crosslinking agent”. However, the addition of the word “type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E). The Examiner suggests referring to “a non-yellowing [[type]] isocyanate-based…”.
Claims 2-19 depend on or refer to one or more of the above claims and thus incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
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 1-6, 9-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2015-0025702 A. A machine translation of KR ‘702 was relied upon for analysis except as noted.
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘702 discloses an adhesive composition and polarizing plate and liquid crystal display device incorporating the adhesive. See abstract. The adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer, crosslinking agent, and silane coupling agent, see p. 4, paragraph beginning “The invention in one embodiment the adhesive composition…”. In the examples, the adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer with n-butyl acrylate, methyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid along with an isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L and a silane compound as specified in Table 1. See description at p. 10-11 regarding embodiments 1-12. Examples 1, 4, and 11 each use an organosilicon compound with two carbonyl groups (C=O groups) as the silane compound, see Table 1 at p. 13-14, [0123] of the original document. The compound of Example 1 is repeated below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
224
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This organosilicon compound reads on the claimed compound having at least two carbonyl groups as claimed.
The isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L used in the examples of KR ‘702 is the same Coronate-L crosslinker described in the present specification at p. 26, [0175] and thus is considered to be a non-yellowing isocyanate crosslinker.
Thus examples 1, 4, and 11 of KR ‘702 each anticipate the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-4, the examples of KR ‘702 use n-butyl acrylate, methyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid monomers to form the acrylic copolymer. The 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate monomer reads on the polar functional group containing crosslinkable monomer having a hydroxy group as in claims 3 and 4. See bottom of p.10 of the translation.
Regarding claim 5, the examples of KR ‘702 use 5 weight parts of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate along with 85 weight parts of n-butyl acrylate, 7 parts of methyl acrylate, and 3 parts of acrylic acid. See bottom of p. 10. This is 5.0 wt. % of the total monomer components and is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the examples of KR ’702 use both methyl acrylate and n-butyl acrylate monomers which read on the claimed first and second monomers, respectively. See bottom of p. 10.
Regarding claim 9, the organosilicon compounds of examples 1, 4, and 11 each include a nitrogen atom as shown in Table 1 of the original document.
Regarding claim 10, the organosilicon compound of example 1 includes an amine group as shown in Table 1 of the original document.
Regarding claims 11-12, the organosilicon compound of example 1 includes a methylene group (-CH2-) between the two carbonyl (C=O) groups as shown in Table 1 of the original document. This also reads on a malonyl group as in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the organosilicon compound of example 1 reads on Formula 1 in which R1 is a methoxy group (a C1 alkoxy group), R2 is a divalent aliphatic hydrocarbon group having 3 carbon atoms, and R3, R4, and R5 are each methoxy groups (a C1 alkoxy group).
Regarding claim 14, The examples of KR ‘702 use 100 parts by weight of the acrylic copolymer monomers, 0.4 parts by weight of the silane compound of each example as shown in Table 1, and 1.0 part by weight of the isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L. These are within the ranges for both the non-yellowing isocyanate crosslinker and the organosilicon compound.
Regarding claim 16, KR ‘702 teaches forming the adhesive composition into an adhesive layer on a release film, see p. 11, “The manufacture of the adhesive attaching polarizing plate”.
Regarding claim 17, KR ‘702 does not specify the adhesion change ratio of the adhesive force measured at 23°C and at 50°C as claimed. However, the reference does teach the “hot adhesion” of the film at 50 °C, see p. 11, “Hot adhesion”. See also paragraphs [0112-0116] of the original document which has the correct units of temperature °C which appear instead as “#” in the translation.
The adhesion change ratio property as claimed is a property of the adhesive composition. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Accordingly, since KR ‘702 teaches the adhesive composition of claim 1 and adhesive sheet of claim 16, the claimed property is expected to be present.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0025702 A. A machine translation of KR ‘702 was relied upon for analysis except as noted.
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘702 discloses an adhesive composition and polarizing plate and liquid crystal display device incorporating the adhesive. See abstract. The adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer, crosslinking agent, and silane coupling agent, see p. 4, paragraph beginning “The invention in one embodiment the adhesive composition…”. In the examples, the adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer with n-butyl acrylate, methyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid along with an isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L and a silane compound as specified in Table 1. See description at p. 10-11 regarding embodiments 1-12. Examples 1, 4, and 11 each use an organosilicon compound with two carbonyl groups (C=O groups) as the silane compound, see Table 1 at p. 13-14, [0123] of the original document, repeated above for reference.
The isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L used in the examples of KR ‘702 is the same Coronate-L crosslinker described in the present specification at p. 26, [0175] and thus is considered to be a non-yellowing isocyanate crosslinker.
The examples of KR ‘702 use 5 weight parts of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate along with 85 weight parts of n-butyl acrylate, 7 parts of methyl acrylate, and 3 parts of acrylic acid. See bottom of p. 10. The amount of methyl acrylate in the examples is thus outside the claimed range of 10-40 wt. %. However, KR ‘702 teaches generally that the total of the C1-12 alkyl (meth)acrylate monomers is from 80-99 wt. %, more preferably 90-95 wt. % of the monomers, see p. 4, second to last paragraph. It would have been obvious to have adjusted the relative amount of n-butyl acrylate and methyl acrylate such that the total is within the preferred range of 90-95 wt. % as disclosed and the amount of methyl acrylate is in the 10-40 wt. % range as claimed to arrive at the claimed invention as KR ‘702 teaches using a combination of C1-12 alkyl (meth)acrylate monomers and thus their relative amounts can be adjusted as desired within the disclosure of the reference.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0025702 A in view of KR-10-2011-0111825. Machine translations of KR ‘702 and KR ’825 are relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘702 discloses an adhesive composition and polarizing plate and liquid crystal display device incorporating the adhesive as described above. While the adhesive of KR ‘702 includes acrylic acid monomer, the example at the bottom of p. 10 of the translation uses 3 weight parts of this monomer out of 100 total parts of monomeric components in the acrylic copolymer, which exceeds the claimed amount.
However, KR ‘825 similarly teaches an acrylic adhesive composition used with a touch panel, see abstract. The adhesive resin described on p. 9 of the translation includes (meth)acrylic acid ester monomers and crosslinkable monomers. A multifunctional crosslinker such as multifunctional isocyanate is also included, see p. 11. A silane coupling agent is also included in the composition, see p. 12. Suitable crosslinkable monomers include acrylic acid, see p. 10. The amount of crosslinkable monomer is from 0.1 to 20 and preferably 0.1 to 10 parts by weight out of 100 parts by weight of the total of monomers used to form the acrylic adhesive copolymer, see p. 10. Thus it would have been obvious to have used an amount of acrylic acid functional monomer in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % of the polymerizable mixture which overlaps the claimed 0.01 to 1 wt. %. KR ‘825 teaches that this is a suitable range of crosslinkable monomers to provide excellent reliability, handling, and durability of the adhesive, see p. 10.
KR ‘702 and KR ‘825 are analogous because they each use an acrylic copolymer adhesive which includes a multifunctional crosslinker and silane coupling agent, and the adhesive is used with an optical device, thus they are similar in composition and function. There is a reasonable expectation of success as KR ‘702 uses 3 wt. % of acrylic acid monomer in its examples which is within the preferred range disclosed in KR ‘825.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0025702 A in view of JP 2013-047292 A. Machine translations of KR ‘702 and JP ‘292 are relied upon for analysis.
Regarding claim 15, KR ‘702 discloses an adhesive composition and polarizing plate and liquid crystal display device incorporating the adhesive as described above. An antistatic agent is disclosed to be a suitable additive, see p. 10, however the reference does not specify the use of an ionic antistatic agent as claimed.
JP ‘292 describes an adhesive composition including an acrylic adhesive copolymer and an ionic antistatic agent, see paragraph [0001] and [0010]. The invention is used with an image display device, see paragraph [0017]. The ionic compound ensures that the surface resistivity of the adhesive layer is low, see paragraph [0016]. JP ‘292 also discloses that the adhesive includes a multifunctional isocyanate crosslinker and silane coupling agent, see paragraph [0062].
KR ‘702 and JP ‘292 are analogous because they each use an acrylic copolymer adhesive which includes a multifunctional crosslinker and silane coupling agent, and the adhesive is used with an optical device, thus they are similar in composition and function. There is a reasonable expectation of success as KR ‘702 teaches using an antistatic agent as a suitable additive, and JP ‘292 teaches ionic antistatic agents suitable for use in a similar adhesive which is also used in a display device.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0025702 A as applied above in view of KR-10-2021-0116446. Machine translations of KR ‘702 and KR ’446 are relied upon for analysis except as noted.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, KR ‘702 discloses an adhesive composition and polarizing plate and liquid crystal display device incorporating the adhesive. See abstract. The adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer, crosslinking agent, and silane coupling agent, see p. 4, paragraph beginning “The invention in one embodiment the adhesive composition…”. In the examples, the adhesive includes an acrylic copolymer with n-butyl acrylate, methyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and acrylic acid along with an isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L and a silane compound as specified in Table 1. See description at p. 10-11 regarding embodiments 1-12. Examples 1, 4, and 11 each use an organosilicon compound with two carbonyl groups (C=O groups) as the silane compound, see Table 1 at p. 13-14, [0123] of the original document. The compound of Example 1 is repeated below for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
224
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This organosilicon compound reads on the claimed compound having at least two carbonyl groups as claimed.
The isocyanate crosslinker Coronate-L used in the examples of KR ‘702 is the same Coronate-L crosslinker described in the present specification at p. 26, [0175] and thus is considered to be a non-yellowing isocyanate crosslinker.
However, KR ‘702 does not also specify an antireflective layer disposed on a lower surface of a base film with the adhesive layer on an upper surface of the base film as claimed.
KR ‘446 teaches an antireflection film equipped with a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and a light emission display device, see title and abstract. The structure shown in FIG. 1 of the original document and described at the bottom of p. 10 of the translation is exemplary and is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In FIG. 1, layer 2 is an anti-reflection film which includes layers 7, 4, 5, 6, and 3. Layer 7 is an anti-stain layer, layer 4 is an anti-reflective layer, layer 5 is a coherent layer, layer 6 is a hard coat layer, layer 3 is a transparent resin film. Layer 1 is an adhesive, and layer 8 is a removable separator. See description at the bottom of p. 10 of the translation. Note that layers 5, 6, and 7 are each disclosed to be arbitrarily arranged or optional and thus may be omitted if desired.
This results in a structure of the form (anti-reflective layer 4) – (transparent resin layer 3) - (adhesive layer 1) in which additional layers 5, 6, and 7 may or may not be present between the anti-reflective layer 4 and the transparent resin layer 3. The transparent resin layer reads on the claimed base film, and the antireflective layer and adhesive layer are positioned on opposite sides of the base film. As for which layer is the ”upper” and “lower” layer, this depends on the orientation of the laminate, that is to say if the laminate of FIG. 1 is turned upside-down then the adhesive layer 1 will be on the upper surface of the base layer 3 and the anti-reflective layer 4 will be on the lower surface.
The film is used in a self-luminous display device such as an electroluminescent display (EL display), see abstract and Technical Field on p. 5 of the translation. The adhesive layer is an acrylic based polymer which includes a crosslinkable functional group-containing monomer, see p. 18-19 of the translation. The adhesive also includes a crosslinking agent such as an isocyanate or aziridine crosslinking agent, see p 23 of the translation.
KR ‘702 and KR ‘446 are analogous because they each use an acrylic copolymer adhesive which includes a multifunctional crosslinker and silane coupling agent, and the adhesive is used with an optical device, thus they are similar in composition and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the acrylic adhesive of KR ‘702 with the optical film and display device of KR ‘446 in order to arrive at the claimed invention, as KR ‘702 teaches using the adhesive with display devices and KR ‘446 teaches display devices with antireflection films which include acrylic adhesives. The antireflection film is useful to suppress external reflections on the panel, see discussion at p. 9 of KR ‘446.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. 7,462,663 is the U.S. equivalent of KR-10-2005-0127183 A, of record. The reference discloses a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition with a crosslinking agent and an organic silane compound, but the compound does not include two or more carbonyl groups as claimed.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759