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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,313,817. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Application No. 18/844,711
US Patent No. 12,313,817
1. An optical laminate in which
a transparent substrate,
a hard coat layer,
an optically functional layer, and
an antifouling layer are sequentially stacked, wherein the hard coat layer includes fillers, wherein the hard coat layer has a thickness of greater than 1.0 μm and less than 3.0 μm, and wherein a 10-point mean roughness Rz of a surface of the optical laminate is equal to or greater than 19 nm and equal to or less than 100 nm.
Note: the pending claim merely shifts the hard coat thickness to a slightly thinner, adjacent range while keeping the same optical laminate structure, same filler-containing hard coat, and same Rz range. The difference between just below 3 μm and 3 μm or more appears to be a routine optimization of layer thickness to balance scratch resistance and bendability. Pending claim 1’s upper end is less than 3 μm, and the issued patent starts at 3 μm or more. That is a very close boundary, not a fundamentally different laminate architecture.
1. An optical laminate comprising:
a transparent base material;
a hard coat layer;
an optical function layer; and
an anti-fouling layer, which are laminated in that order,
wherein the hard coat layer contains a filler, wherein the hard coat layer has a thickness of 3 μm or more and 25 μm or less,
wherein a 10-point average roughness Rz of a surface of the optical laminate is 19 nm or more and 100 nm or less, and
wherein an apparent average particle diameter of an aggregate of the filler, which is obtained by measuring the surface of the optical laminate with an atomic force microscope, is 150 nm or more and 2200 nm or less.
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, 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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. US 2022/0317339 in view of Takami WO 2019107036 (citation is provided from the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ono teaches an optical laminate (see Fig. 1: 10) in which a transparent substrate (1), a hard coat layer (2), an optically functional layer (4), and an antifouling layer (5) are sequentially stacked (see Fig. 1, para 0011 and 0024), wherein the hard coat layer includes fillers (see para 0033), wherein the hard coat layer has a thickness of greater than 1.0 μm and less than 3.0 μm (see para 0011 and 0052: teaches hard coat layer thickness of 3 μm or more and 25 μm), and
wherein a 10-point mean roughness Rz of a surface of the optical laminate is equal to or greater than 19 nm and equal to or less than 100 nm (see para 0086: “The 10-point average roughness Rz of the uppermost surface of the optical laminate 10 is 19 nm or more and 100 nm or less and preferably 40 nm or more and 100 nm or less”).
Ono does not teach wherein the hard coat layer has a thickness of greater than 1.0 μm and less than 3.0 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, Takami teaches a hard coat film and optical laminate in which a hard coat layer is provided on a film substrate and an inorganic thin film is provided on the hard coat layer (see para 0001 and 0006). Takami further teaches that the hard coat layer contains a binder resin and an inorganic filler, and that the hard coat layer thickness is preferably about 1 to 10 μm, including 1 μm or more and more preferably 2 μm or more (see para 0007, 0020 and 0036). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ono’s hard coat layer thickness to a thickness greater than 1 μm and less than 3 μm, as taught by Takami, because selecting a thickness within the Takami’s disclosed preferred range would have been a routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to obtain suitable surface irregularities, adhesion and film strength.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein an apparent mean particle size of an aggregate of the fillers which is obtained by measuring the surface of the optical laminate using an atomic force microscope is equal to or greater than 150 nm and equal to or less than 2200 nm (see para 0088).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein an apparent mean particle size of an aggregate of the fillers which is obtained by measuring a surface of the hard coat layer using an atomic force microscope is equal to or greater than 110 nm and equal to or less than 1600 nm (see para 0042 and 0043).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein the optically functional layer includes at least a low-refractive-index layer (see para 0061).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein the optically functional layer comprises a low-refractive-index layer and a high-refractive-index layer which are alternately stacked (see Fig. 1 and para 0059).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein a value of a water contact angle after 2000 cycles of a steel-wool sliding test is equal to or greater than 80% of the value of the water contact angle before the steel-wool sliding test (see para 0016, 0089).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, and Ono further teaches wherein the antifouling layer includes a fluorine-based compound (see para 0070, 0071).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ono teaches an article comprising the optical laminate according to claim 1 (see para 0002 of Ono).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ono teaches an image display device, comprising: a screen; and the optical laminate according to claim 1 that is formed on a surface of the screen (see para 0019 of Ono).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Tamaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi US 2022/0357485.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ono teaches the optical laminate according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a minimum value of a diameter of a mandrel at the time of bending in which no crack is generated is equal to or less than 7 mm when the optical laminate is bent by 180° such that the antifouling layer faces inward using a bending test machine based on JIS K5600-5-1.
Kobayashi expressly teaches that the antireflection film preferably passes a bending test by cylindrical mandrel method according to JIS K5600-5-1 with a mandrel diameter of 7 mm or less, more preferably 6 mm or less (see para 0037). Kobayashi further teaches that, in flexibility test, samples without crack in the test using mandrel diameters of 6 mm or less were evaluated as good (see para 0089). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the optical laminate of Ono as modified by Tamaki with the claimed bending test standard as taught by Kobayashi because selecting layer thickness and materials to prevent cracking at a mandrel diameter 7 mm or less would have been an obvious design modification to provide bendability/flexibility for foldable display use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights