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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 25, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the correspondingly necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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 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 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.
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-195051 A to Yamahi et al. (translation provided with this Office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamahi discloses (e.g., Figs. 1, 5, and 6, and their descriptions) a laminated film, comprising: an optical functional layer 2 (while not explicitly described as an optical functional layer, microlens array 2 achieves the optical function of redirecting light, consistent with Applicant’s description of the optical functional layer “having a function of changing a direction of light” in paragraph [0004] of Applicant’s specification as-filed) having a first main surface (e.g., upper illustrated surface) and a second main surface (e.g., lower illustrated surface), the first main surface having an uneven structure and having a height of unevenness of from 10 nm to 100 μm (paragraph [0016]); a porous layer arranged on the first main surface of the optical functional layer (e.g., functional film 5 is described as porous, paragraph [0027]); and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer arranged on the porous layer on a side opposite to the optical functional layer (e.g., bonding member 12, such as an adhesive, paragraph [0070], where selecting characteristic such as pressure-sensitive would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, selecting from known types of adhesives, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature), wherein the optical functional layer comprises a reflection-type hologram film, a microlens array film, or a prism film (e.g., microlens 2), and wherein the porous layer has a refractive index of from 1.17 to 1.30 (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0102]–[0107]; and the examples 11 and 15 described in Table 2-1, showing 99.9% at samples with n 1.20 and 1.27, reasonably suggesting a refractive index within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the porous layer contains a silicon compound (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the porous layer has a porosity of from 20 vol % to 60 vol % (e.g., Examples 11 and 15 of Table 2-1, 40% and 55.6%).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the porous layer has a thickness of from 30 nm to 5 μm (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the porous layer is formed of one or a plurality of kinds of constituent units each forming a fine pore structure, and the constituent units are chemically bonded to each other through a catalytic action (e.g., paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0054], and [0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the constituent unit of the porous layer is a constituent unit having at least one shape selected from the group consisting of: a particle shape; a fiber shape; a rod shape; and a flat plate shape (e.g., paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0054], and [0055]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein bonding between the constituent units of the porous layer includes a hydrogen bond or a covalent bond (e.g., paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0054], and [0055]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamahi would have rendered obvious wherein the porous layer is directly formed on the first main surface of the optical functional layer (e.g., Fig. 1; paragraph [0016]).
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamahi, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0033687 to Hattori et al. (including an inventive entity differing from the inventorship of the pending application).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamahi does not explicitly disclose wherein the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×105 (Pa) or more and 1.0×106 (Pa) or less.
Hattori discloses an optical laminate, similar to Yamahi, and Hattori teaches that a storage modulus of elasticity of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is from 1.3×105 (Fa) to 1.0×107 (Pa) as a suitable configuration (e.g., paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamahi such that the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×105 (Pa) or more and 1.0×106 (Pa) or less, as suggested by Hattori, as a suitable configuration, particularly where Yamahi is silent regarding the further details (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yamahi and Hattori would have rendered obvious another pressure-sensitive adhesive layer as the outermost layer on a second main surface side of the optical functional layer (e.g., second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 32 of Hattori, described starting in paragraph [0101]), and the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer having a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×104 (Pa) or more and 9.0×104 (Pa) or less (paragraph [0102] of Hattori; where Hattori teaches including two adhesive layers on either side of the device so that it can be manufactured using a lamination process for its efficiency, paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamahi discloses (e.g., Figs. 1, 5, and 6 and their descriptions) a laminated film, comprising: an optical functional layer 2 (while not explicitly described as an optical functional layer, microlens array 2 achieves the optical function of redirecting light, consistent with Applicant’s description of the optical functional layer “having a function of changing a direction of light” in paragraph [0004] of Applicant’s specification as-filed) having a first main surface (e.g., upper illustrated surface) and a second main surface (e.g., lower illustrated surface), the first main surface having an uneven structure and having a height of unevenness of from 200 nm to 10 μm (paragraph [0016]); a porous layer (e.g., functional film 5, described as porous, paragraph [0027] to control refractive index) directly formed on the first main surface of the optical functional layer (Fig. 1; paragraph [0016]); a first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (e.g., bonding member 12, such as an adhesive, paragraph [0070], where selecting characteristic such as pressure-sensitive would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, selecting from known types of adhesives, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature) arranged on the porous layer on a side opposite to the optical functional layer, wherein the optical functional layer comprises a reflection-type hologram film, a microlens array film, or a prism film (microlens array 2), wherein the porous layer contains a silicon compound (e.g., paragraph [0026]), has a porosity of from 20 vol % to 60 vol % (e.g., Examples 11 and 15 of Table 2-1, 40% and 55.6%), and has a refractive index of from 1.17 to 1.30 (e.g., paragraphs [0078] and [0102]–[0107]; and the examples 11 and 15 described in Table 2-1, showing 99.9% at samples with n 1.20 and 1.27, reasonably suggesting a refractive index within the claimed range).
Yamahi does not explicitly disclose a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer as the outermost layer on a second main surface side of the optical functional layer, and wherein the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×105 (Pa) or more and 1.0×106 (Pa) or less, and wherein the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×104 (Pa) or more and 9.0×104 (Pa) or less.
Hattori discloses an optical laminate, similar to Yamahi, and Hattori teaches a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer as the outermost layer on a second main surface side of the optical functional layer, and wherein the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×105 (Pa) or more and 1.0×106 (Pa) or less, and wherein the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×104 (Pa) or more and 9.0×104 (Pa) or less (e.g., teaches that a storage modulus of elasticity of a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is from 1.3×105 (Fa) to 1.0×107 (Pa) as a suitable configuration, e.g., paragraph [0098]; also where Hattori teaches including two adhesive layers on either side of the device so that it can be manufactured using a lamination process for its efficiency, paragraph [0096], and paragraph [0102] of Hattori teaches a second adhesive storage modulus of elasticity within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamahi to include a second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer as the outermost layer on a second main surface side of the optical functional layer, and wherein the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×105 (Pa) or more and 1.0×106 (Pa) or less, and wherein the second pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has a storage modulus of elasticity of 1.0×104 (Pa) or more and 9.0×104 (Pa) or less, as suggested by Hattori, as a suitable configuration, and as a way to improve manufacturing efficiency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights