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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (CN 114395314).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of CN ‘314 provided with this Office Action. Applicant previously cited CN ‘314 in the IDS filed 9/13/2024.
Regarding claim 1:
Ma discloses a thermosetting antistatic coating comprising:
20-60 parts of a thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting polyester, polyurethane, acrylate, polycarbonate, and phenol;
0.1-10 parts of inorganic filler;
0.1-10 parts of antistatic agent;
0.1-10 parts of thermosetting agent (thermal curing agent); and
20-80 parts of solvent, all parts by mass (abstract; p2-3).
The antistatic agent comprises carbon black, graphite, graphene, or carbon nanotubes (p4).
Regarding claim 2:
Ma teaches uniformly dispersing the components of the composition (p4; p7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 114395314).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of CN ‘314 provided with this Office Action. Applicant previously cited CN ‘314 in the IDS filed 9/13/2024.
Regarding claim 3:
Ma teaches an amount of antistatic agent is 0.1-10 parts by mass, while the present claims require 13 parts by mass. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of antistatic agent that taught by Ma are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. Furthermore, Ma does not specifically disclose deleterious effects from the small differences in the amount of antistatic agent
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of antistatic agent disclosed by Ma and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of antistatic agent disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Ma, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 114395314) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2019/0073505).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of CN ‘314 provided with this Office Action. Applicant previously cited CN ‘314 in the IDS filed 9/13/2024.
Regarding claim 4:
Ma discloses a thermosetting antistatic coating comprising:
20-60 parts of a thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting polyester, polyurethane, acrylate, polycarbonate, and phenol;
0.1-10 parts of inorganic filler;
0.1-10 parts of antistatic agent;
0.1-10 parts of thermosetting agent (thermal curing agent); and
20-80 parts of solvent, all parts by mass (abstract; p2-3).
The antistatic agent comprises carbon black, graphite, graphene, or carbon nanotubes (p4). Ma teaches the coating can be applied to OLED devices (i.e., a display panel) (abstract; p2; p4; p7).
Ma is silent with regard to a display panel wherein the antistatic coating layer is arranged on a surface of a substrate of the display panel away from a display unit.
Such an arrangement was known in the art to have utility. For example, Kwon discloses a display device comprising a display module (unit) 30 comprising a support substrate 31 and an anti-electrostatic layer 43 applied to the back of the substrate away from a pixel array layer 33 and other display unit features [0007; 0061; Fig. 4]. The antistatic layer protects the display module from electricity applied externally [0071; 0149].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the antistatic layer of Ma on the backside of a substrate away from the display unit to protect the display from electrostatic electricity applied externally as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 5:
Although the present claim provides a process by which the antistatic coating layer is prepared, the claim is drawn to a final product. While Ma in view of Kwon does not disclose the claimed curing treatment process, note that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Ma in view of Kwon meets the requirements of the claimed composition, the prior art meets the requirements of present claim.
Regarding claim 6:
Ma teaches the dry thickness is 3-100 µm or 5-80 µm (p7).
Regarding claim 7:
Given that Ma discloses an antistatic layer that otherwise comprises the same materials as presently claimed, the examiner submits the layer has the same thermal conductivity as presently claimed. Alternatively, Ma discloses ranges for its components and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts within the disclosed ranges to adjust the properties of the layer (e.g., increased conductivity by increasing the amount of conductive materials) as desired for a given end use. In so doing, the thermal conductivity would vary, including over the claimed amount, and thereby one would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
Ma teaches an amount of antistatic agent is 0.1-10 parts by mass, while the present claims require 13 parts by mass. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of antistatic agent that taught by Ma are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. Furthermore, Ma does not specifically disclose deleterious effects from the small differences in the amount of antistatic agent
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of antistatic agent disclosed by Ma and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of antistatic agent disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Ma, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
Given that Ma discloses an antistatic layer that otherwise comprises the same materials as presently claimed, the examiner submits the layer meets at least one of the alternatively claimed property requirements. Alternatively, Ma discloses ranges for its components and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts within the disclosed ranges to adjust the properties of the layer (e.g., increased conductivity by increasing the amount of conductive materials) as desired for a given end use. In so doing, the reflectivity and/or optical density would vary, including over the claimed amount, and thereby one would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
Ma teaches a surface resistance below 9.9*1010 Ω (p7). Given that Ma discloses an antistatic layer that otherwise comprises the same materials as presently claimed, the examiner submits the layer has the same resistance as presently claimed. Alternatively, Ma discloses ranges for its components and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts within the disclosed ranges to adjust the properties of the layer (e.g., increased conductivity by increasing the amount of conductive materials) as desired for a given end use. In so doing, the resistance would vary, including over the claimed amount, and thereby one would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
Ma teaches uniformly dispersing the components of the composition (p4; p7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights