DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 and 10/29/2024 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 4 and 5 recite “α (x 10-5/K)” and “β (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “α x 10-5/K” and “β x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, lines 3 and 4 recite “α (x 10-5/K)” and “β (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “α x 10-5/K” and “β x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, line 2 and line 3 recite “a linear expansion coefficient”, which should be “the linear expansion coefficient”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 2 recites “α (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “α x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 3 recites “1.5 to 8.0 (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “1.5 x 10-5/K to 8.0 x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, lines 2 and 3 recite “α (x 10-5/K)” and “β (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “α x 10-5/K” and “β x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8, line 2 and line 3 recite “a linear expansion coefficient”, which should be “the linear expansion coefficient”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 2 recites “α (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “α x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, lines 2 and 3 recites “1.5 to 8.0 (x 10-5/K)”, which should be “1.5 x 10-5/K to 8.0 x 10-5/K”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2006206782 A cited in IDS) in view of Hoshino et al. (JP 2014232276 A cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Nakamura et al. and Hoshino et al. are based on machine translations of the references (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7 and 8, Nakamura et al. disclose a functional film 10 comprising a protecting layer 14 (protective film base material), an adhesive layer 13, a functional layer 12 having an appropriate writing feeling with a pen (writing feel improving layer) and a substrate film layer 11 (writing feel improving base material layer) (see Figure 1, Abstract and paragraph 0019). The protective layer 14 and the adhesive layer 13 together read on a protecting film as presently claimed. The functional layer 12 and the substrate film layer 11 together read on a writing feel improving film as presently claimed. Accordingly, the protective layer is laminated on a surface of the writing feel improving film.
The protecting layer 14 (protective base material) can be made of polyethylene terephthalate resin and has a thickness of 5 to 300 microns (see paragraph 0028). The protecting layer 14 is identical to protective film base material layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0061 and 0063 of present specification).
The adhesive layer 13 can be acrylic-polymer based pressure sensitive adhesive made of acrylic polymer comprising alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid as a main component and comonomers including acrylic acid and hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate (see paragraph 0029). The thickness of the adhesive layer is 1 to 150 microns (see paragraph 0030). The adhesive layer also includes plasticizer (see paragraph 0029). The adhesive layer 13 is substantially identical to adhesive layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0064-0069, 0071, 0073, 0084, 0086 of present application).
The functional layer 12 (writing feel improving layer) can be a layer having an appropriate writing feeling with a pen for a pen input device (see paragraph 0019). Further, the functional layer 12 can have antiglare properties (see paragraph 0019). The thickness of the functional layer is 0.02 to 1000 microns (see paragraph 0021).
The base film layer 11 (writing feel improving base material layer) can be made of polycarbonate resin, polyethylene terephthalate resin, etc. (see paragraph 0018). The thickness of the base film layer is 10 to 3000 microns (see paragraph 0018). The base film layer 11 is identical to writing feel improving film base material layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0011 and 0013 of present specification).
Nakamura et al. do not disclose the linear expansion coefficient of the writing feel improving film, the linear expansion coefficient of the protective film, or that the claimed formula is satisfied.
Hoshino et al. disclose an antiglare hard coat film comprising a base film 11 and an antiglare hard coat layer 12 provided on a surface of the base film 11 (see Abstract). The antiglare hard coat film provides a favorable writing feeling of a touch pen and on which finger prints are barely seen (see Abstract). The base film 11 can be made of polycarbonate resin, polyethylene terephthalate resin, etc. and has a thickness of 15 to 300 microns (see paragraphs 0054 and 0056). The base film layer 11 is identical to writing feel improving film base material layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0011 and 0013 of present specification). The antiglare hard coat layer 12 is prepared from a coating composition comprising polyfunctional (meth)acrylate as a curable resin, fine particles such as silica particles having an average particle diameter of 1 to 10 microns in amount of 1 to 50 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate and leveling agent (surface conditioner) such as a silicone-based leveling agent in amount of 0.001 to 1.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate (see paragraphs 0027, 0028, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0037, 0038, 0041). The thickness of the antiglare hard coat layer 12 is 1 to 15 microns (see paragraph 0052). The antiglare hard coat layer comprising polyfunctional (meth)acrylate, silica particles and leveling agent is identical to a writing feel improving layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0024, 0025, 0027, 0030, 0031, 0032, 0034 of present specification). Given that the base film layer 11 of Hoshino et al. is identical to writing feel improving film base material layer and given that the antiglare hard coat layer 12 is identical to writing feel improving layer, the antiglare hard coat film (layer 11 and layer 12) of Hoshino et al. reads on a writing feel improving film as presently claimed. Further, as noted above, the antiglare hard coat film provides a favorable writing feeling of a touch pen and on which finger prints are barely seen.
In light of motivation for using an antiglare hard coat film comprising base film and antiglare hard coat layer disclosed by Hoshino et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to replace the base film and the functional layer of Nakamura et al. with the antiglare hard coat film (base film and antiglare hard coat layer) of Hoshino et al. in order to provide a favorable writing feeling of a touch pen and on which finger prints are barely seen, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Nakamura et al. in view of Hoshino et al. disclose a functional film comprising the protective film base material layer, the adhesive layer, the writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer as set forth above. Given that the protective film (protective film base material layer and adhesive layer) and the writing feel improving film (writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer) is identical to that utilized in the present invention, a linear expansion coefficient of the writing feel improving film and a linear expansion coefficient of the protective film will necessarily inherently satisfy formula as presently claimed. Given that the functional film comprises the protective film base material, the adhesive layer, the writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer is identical to that utilized in the present invention, the functional film reads on a protective film-equipped writing feel improving film.
While there is no explicit disclosure that the functional is a protective film-equipped writing feel improving film as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. a protective film-equipped writing feel improving film, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art functional film and further that the prior art structure which is a functional film identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Nakamura et al. in view of Hoshino et al. disclose a functional film comprising the protective film base material layer, the adhesive layer, the writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer as set forth above. Given that the writing feel improving film (writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer) is identical to that utilized in the present invention, a linear expansion coefficient of the writing feel improving film will necessarily inherently meet that presently claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Nakamura et al. in view of Hoshino et al. disclose a functional film comprising the protective film base material layer, the adhesive layer, the writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer as set forth above. Given that the protective film (protective film base material layer and adhesive layer) and the writing feel improving film (writing feel improving layer and writing feel improving base material layer) is identical to that utilized in the present invention, a delamination force between the writing feel improving film and the protective film will necessarily inherently meet that presently claimed.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimosugi (US 2016/0328050 A1) disclose a transparent laminated film comprising a transparent substrate layer and a surface-smooth layer on one side of the transparent substrate layer disposed on a display surface of a pen-input device (see Abstract). The surface-smooth layer comprises a cured product of a curable composition comprising a urethane (meth)acrylate and a leveling agent (see Abstract). The curable composition can contain a fine particle (see paragraph 0094).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787