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. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 June 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 14 June 2024 are acceptable.
Double Patenting Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 8-9 be found allowable, claims 19-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 11 is 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 claim 11, the last two lines of the claim describing the protection film are confusing as the claim refers to “a portion” and “another portion” and later refers to “the portion”. It is not clear what is intended by “the portion”, and thus this limitation lacks clear antecedent basis. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). The Examiner suggests reciting “…the protective film comprises a first portion located in the first area and a second portion spaced apart from the first portion and located in the second area.” to provide clarity.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. Pub. 2022/0109126) in view of Lee (U.S. Pat. 10,696,016).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a surface protection film and organic light emitting device which includes the film, see title and abstract. The film includes a base layer 110 that includes a base film 111 with first and second antistatic layers 11A, 11B on opposite sides of the base film 111. Adhesive layer 124 is provided on one side of the antistatic layer 11B. See p. 1, [0015-0031] and figures such as FIG. 1 and FIG. 4. See also description at p. 6, [0132]. The base film 111 is preferably polyethylene terephthalate (PET) but may also be polyimide, see p. 6, [0133].
The first and second antistatic layers include a conductive material such as a conductive polymer or carbon nanotube, see p. 7, [0140-0142], reading on the claimed first and second conductive layers.
Adhesive layer 124 is formed of an acrylic polymer, see p. 3, [0070]. In the examples, the adhesive composition includes polar monomers such as 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA), see p. 9, [0180]. This reads on the adhesive layer comprising polar molecules as claimed.
The protective film is applied to the surface of an adherend 140, see FIG. 3 and description at p. 8, [0158-0159]. The adhesive layer is applied to an encapsulation layer of an organic light-emitting element, see p. 8, [0168]. See FIG. 4 and description at p. 1, [0015-0031] which has the following layers in order:
PNG
media_image1.png
514
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
11A: first antistatic layer of Choi (reads on the claimed second antistatic layer)
111: base film (readings on the base layer)
11B: second antistatic layer of Choi (reads on the claimed first antistatic layer)
110: base layer of Choi; these three layers combined read on the claimed protective film
124: adhesive layer
515: encapsulation layer (reads on the substrate)
514: organic light emitting diode (reads on the display layer comprising a display element)
513: thin film transistor
512: plastic substate
511: back plate
However, Choi does not specify that the base film layer is transparent.
Lee describes a window film and flexible display what includes the window film. The window film is on the outermost side of an optical display and as such should have good transparency, see col. 1, lines 22-37. The base layer of the window film may be made of an optically transparent resin such as polyethylene terephthalate or polyimide. See col. 4, lines 46-67.
Choi and Lee are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each discloses protective films applied to display devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to have formed the base layer of the protective film from a transparent material so that the underlying display element can be visible during operation.
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches that the base film is formed preferably of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) but may also be polyimide, see p. 6, [0133]. Similarly, Lee teaches that the base layer of the window film may be made of an optically transparent resin such as polyethylene terephthalate or polyimide. See col. 4, lines 46-67.
Regarding claim 3, Choi does not require the use of nanoparticles in the base film layer. See p. 8, [0133-0134] which is silent regarding any nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches that the surface resistance of the anti-static layers may be in the range of 103 Ω/sq to 5x1012 Ω/sq which overlaps the claimed range. See p. 7, [0145]. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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).
Regarding claim 5, Choi also teaches that the anti-static layers are formed with a conductive material such as a conductive polymer, see p. 7, [0140-0141].
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches that the anti-static layers have a thickness of from 10 to 400 nm, most preferably from 20 to 100 nm. See p. 7, [0144]. This is fully within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches that the adhesive layer has a thickness of from 10 to 200 microns, see p. 7, [0149]. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Choi teaches that the anti-static layers serve to reduce the surface resistance of the adhesive layer, see p. 7, [0147]. Thus it is presumed that the adhesive layer has the same a surface resistance as the anti-static layers, which is in the range of from 103 Ω/sq to 5x1012 Ω/sq which overlaps the claimed range. See p. 7, [0145].
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Choi does not require any fluorine-containing substances in the base layer (which includes the base film 111 and antistatic coatings 11A, 11B). While the base film may include polytetrafluoroethylene (see p. 6, [0133] and p. 7, [0151]), this is just one of many possible materials and is not required. The examples at p. 9-10 do not use any fluorine-containing components. Thus, the fluorine (F) content is presumed to be 0.
Regarding claim 10, Choi discloses a surface protection film and organic light emitting device which includes the film, see title and abstract. The film includes a base layer 110 that includes a base film 111 with first and second antistatic layers 11A, 11B on opposite sides of the base film 111. Adhesive layer 124 is provided on one side of the antistatic layer 11B. See p. 1, [0015-0031] and figures such as FIG. 1 and FIG. 4. See also description at p. 6, [0132]. The base film 111 is preferably polyethylene terephthalate (PET) but may also be polyimide, see p. 6, [0133].
The first and second antistatic layers include a conductive material such as a conductive polymer or carbon nanotube, see p. 7, [0140-0142], reading on the claimed first and second conductive layers.
Adhesive layer 124 is formed of an acrylic polymer, see p. 3, [0070]. In the examples, the adhesive composition includes polar monomers such as 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA), see p. 9, [0180]. This reads on the adhesive layer comprising polar molecules as claimed.
The protective film is applied to the surface of an adherend 140, see FIG. 3 and description at p. 8, [0158-0159]. The adhesive layer is applied to an encapsulation layer of an organic light-emitting element, see p. 8, [0168]. See FIG. 4 and description at p. 1, [0015-0031] which has the following layers in order:
PNG
media_image1.png
514
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
11A: first antistatic layer of Choi (reads on the claimed second antistatic layer)
111: base film (readings on the base layer)
11B: second antistatic layer of Choi (reads on the claimed first antistatic layer)
110: base layer of Choi; these three layers combined read on the claimed protective film
124: adhesive layer
515: encapsulation layer (reads on the encapsulation layer)
514: organic light emitting diode (reads on the display element)
513: thin film transistor
512: plastic substate (reading on the substrate)
511: back plate (also reading on the substrate)
Choi teaches that the anti-static layers serve to reduce the surface resistance of the adhesive layer, see p. 7, [0147]. Thus it is presumed that the adhesive layer has the same a surface resistance as the anti-static layers, which is in the range of from 103 Ω/sq to 5x1012 Ω/sq which overlaps the claimed range. See p. 7, [0145].
However, Choi does not specify that the base film layer is transparent.
Lee describes a window film and flexible display what includes the window film. The window film is on the outermost side of an optical display and as such should have good transparency, see col. 1, lines 22-37. The base layer of the window film may be made of an optically transparent resin such as polyethylene terephthalate or polyimide. See col. 4, lines 46-67.
Choi and Lee are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as each discloses protective films applied to display devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to have formed the base layer of the protective film from a transparent material so that the underlying display element can be visible during operation.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the display unit 650a includes a lower substrate 610 which extends from the display unit as shown in FIGS. 6-7 and described at col. 19, lines 3-24. Also shown are insulation layer 617 and planarization layer 614 which also extend horizontally in different lengths. Protective layer 618 covers different portions of LED 615, insulation layer 617, and planarization layer 614. See annotated FIG. 7, reproduced below. See also description at col. 20, lines 5-14. The top part of the figure reads on the first area, which faces a first direction (up). The portion of layer 618 that covers this reads on the claimed “portion” or first portion. Another portion of layer 618 covers the angled side of layer 614 that reads on the claimed second area which is extended from and spaced apart from the first area (see “area 2 – angled surface” in the annotated figure). The portion of layer 618 here reads on the claimed “another portion” or second portion. The flat surface of layer 614 reads on the claimed third area located between the first and second areas.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the protective film has different portions which cover these different areas of the substate, meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches an organic light emitting diode 514 which reads on the claimed optical member, and plastic substrate 512 which reads on the claimed window.
Alternately, Lee teaches light emitting diode components 615a/b/c shown in FIG. 7 and described at col. 19, line 59 through col. 20, line 4 which read on the claimed optical member. Window film 500 has good transparency, see col. 15, lines 36-45 and col. 18, lines 46-53. Transparent electrode 680 shown in FIG. 6 and described at col. 19, lines 12-19.
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches that the base film is formed preferably of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) but may also be polyimide, see p. 6, [0133]. Similarly, Lee teaches that the base layer of the window film may be made of an optically transparent resin such as polyethylene terephthalate or polyimide. See col. 4, lines 46-67.
Regarding claim 14, Choi does not require the use of nanoparticles in the base film layer. See p. 8, [0133-0134] which is silent regarding any nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches that the surface resistance of the anti-static layers may be in the range of 103 Ω/sq to 5x1012 Ω/sq which overlaps the claimed range. See p. 7, [0145]. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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).
Regarding claim 16, Choi also teaches that the anti-static layers are formed with a conductive material such as a conductive polymer, see p. 7, [0140-0141].
Regarding claim 17, Choi teaches that the anti-static layers have a thickness of from 10 to 400 nm, most preferably from 20 to 100 nm. See p. 7, [0144]. This is fully within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches that the adhesive layer has a thickness of from 10 to 200 microns, see p. 7, [0149]. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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
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
Prosecution Insights