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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to the claims and abstract in the submission dated 10/02/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 3-5, and 9-10 are amended. Claims 11-16 are new. Claims 1-16 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al., US 2015/0056413 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hwang).
As to claim 1, Hwang teaches (Figs. 1-5) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with a pattern of triangular prisms, para [0109], Fig. 1) comprising:
a micro concave-convex structure layer (10, the structure layer 10 has a plurality of steric structures which are a pattern of linear triangular prisms, paras [0050], [0092] and [0109], Figs. 1, 4 and 5) which is a cured product of an active energy ray curing composition (10, the structure layer is a resin cured layer and the curable resin comprises a UV-curable monomer, the structure layer is fabricated using the UV curable resin cured by an UV irradiator, paras [0080] and [0109], Fig. 1); and
a transparent substrate layer (20, the substrate layer of the optical sheet is made of polyethylene terephthalate, which is a transparent polymer, paras [0085] and [0109], Fig. 1), wherein
the active energy ray curing composition contains 40 mass% or more of inorganic nanoparticles (10, the resin cured layer comprises metal oxide nanoparticles in an amount of 10-70% by weight, para [0099], Fig. 1),
the micro concave-convex structure layer has a micro concave-convex structure with a period of 10 μm to 100 μm on a surface (10, the pattern of triangular prisms has a pitch of 50 µm, para [0109], Fig. 1),
the micro concave-convex structure layer has an indentation depth (hmax) (D1, “D1 is a depth to which the optical sheet is indented by external pressure,” para [0013], Fig. 1) of 8 μm or more (D1, Table 2, under Condition 2 the D1 column shows indentation depths of 8 μm or more for examples 1-7 which fall within the claimed range of 8 μm or more) at a maximum test force (D1, D1 is measured when a maximum compression force is applied, paras [0121] and [0128]-0131], Fig. 1) and an elastic deformation power (nIT) of 50% or more (the optical sheet has an elastic recovery rate of 80% or higher which is within the claimed range of 50% or more, para [0053], Table 2, Elastic Recovery Rate column, Fig. 2), and
the indentation depth (hmax) at the maximum test force and the elastic deformation power (nlT) are obtained under the following measurement conditions:
indenter: 100 μm x 100 μm flat indenter
compressive force per second of flat indenter: 20 mN to 60 mN
maximum compressive force: 500 mN
stop time at maximum compressive force: 5 seconds to 10 seconds.
Moreover, the further limitations of claim 1 are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as with the flat indenter and the Condition 2 measurements as taught by Hwang (11, flat indenter having a diameter of 50mm and Condition 2, paras [0123] and [0128]-[0131], Table 2, Figs. 1-3). The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'Even 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) (citations omitted).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose active energy ray curing composition such that it contains 40 mass% or more of inorganic nanoparticles, which overlaps the disclosed range of metal oxide nanoparticles in an amount of 10-70% by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, composition containing inorganic nanoparticles is an art recognized results effective variable in that the curing composition containing an amount of nanoparticles achieve the desired refractive index and elastic properties of the optical sheet as taught by Hwang (paras [0078] and [0099]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the curing composition containing an amount of nanoparticles because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so achieves the desired refractive index and elastic properties of the optical sheet (Hwang, paras [0078] and [0099]).
As to claim 2, Hwang teaches the prism sheet according to claim 1, wherein a maximum point displacement is 2.1 % or more (D1, D, application of a force to a structure layer 10 compresses the upper surface of the structure layer 10 to a depth D1, and the ratio of D1 to D is preferably greater than 1/8, which is within the range of 2.1% or more, para [0092], Fig. 1) in a tearing test of a test piece formed of the cured product of the active energy ray curing composition, and
the tearing test is performed according to JIS-K-7128-3 under the following measurement conditions:
shape of the test piece: a right-angle tearing test piece according to JIS-K-7128-3
thickness of the test piece: 200 μm ± 50 μm (value measured for each test piece)
preparation of the test piece: prepared by punching
distance between grips: 56 mm
test environment: 23 °C x 50% RH
test speed: 500 mm/min.
Moreover, the further limitations of claim 1 are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as with the flat indenter and the Condition 2 measurements as taught by Hwang (11, flat indenter having a diameter of 50mm and Condition 2, paras [0123] and [0128]-[0131], Table 2, Figs. 1-3). The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'Even 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) (citations omitted).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the maximum point displacement such that it is 2.1% or more, which overlaps the disclosed range of greater than 1/8, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the point displacement is an art recognized results effective variable in that the compression shows the optical sheet is flexible enough to pit as much as possible without being damaged by external impact as taught by Hwang (para [0092]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize maximum point displacement because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the compression shows the optical sheet is flexible enough to pit as much as possible without being damaged by external impact (Hwang, para [0092]).
As to claim 3, Hwang teaches the prism sheet according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are zirconia (the metal oxide nanoparticles are ZrO2, which is zirconium dioxide commonly known as zirconia, paras [0077] and [0109]).
As to claim 4, Hwang teaches the prism sheet according to claim 1, wherein the active energy ray curing composition contains a (meth)acrylate compound (10, in forming the structure layer 10 of the optical sheet the curable resin composition comprises a UV-curable monomer, examples include: benzy1(meth)acrylate, para [0080], Fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Hwang teaches the prism sheet according to claim 2, wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are zirconia (the metal oxide nanoparticles are ZrO2, which is zirconium dioxide commonly known as zirconia, paras [0077] and [0109]).
As to claim 12, Hwang teaches the prism sheet according to claim 2, wherein the active energy ray curing composition contains a (meth)acrylate compound (10, in forming the structure layer 10 of the optical sheet the curable resin composition comprises a UV-curable monomer, examples include: benzy1(meth)acrylate, para [0080], Fig. 1).
Claims 5-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al., US 2015/0056413 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hwang), and further in view of Kim et al., US 2013/0286663 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kim).
As to claim 5, Hwang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Hwang does not teach the prism sheet, wherein the active energy ray curing composition contains a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), wherein the active energy ray curing composition (20, 30, a structure layer 20 is a resin cured layer and a resin cured layer 30 is formed on the structure layer 20, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 2) contains a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition (30, the resin cured layer having a slippable element and the curable resin containing a slippable element is included in an amount of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, paras [0059] and [0066], Fig. 2).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a surface conditioner such that the parts by mass range from 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the surface conditioner composition is an art recognized results effective variable in that the amount is considered for preventing the deterioration of brightness as taught by Kim (para [0066]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of surface conditioner because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition of Kim, because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
As claim 6, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5.
Hwang does not teach the prism sheet, wherein the surface conditioner contains silicon.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), wherein the surface conditioner contains silicon (30, the resin cured layer 30 has a slippable element such as Si, para [0059], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner containing silicon of Kim, because the optical sheet is not damaged by external shock, is easily treated, reduces defective fractions and production costs, and can increase production efficiency (para [0035]).
As to claim 7, Hwang teaches (Figs. 1-5) an active energy ray curing composition (10, the structure layer is a resin cured layer and the curable resin comprises a UV-curable monomer, the structure layer is fabricated using the UV curable resin cured by an UV irradiator, paras [0080] and [0109], Fig. 1) for a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with a pattern of triangular prisms, para [0109], Fig. 1), the composition comprising:
inorganic nanoparticles (10, the resin cured layer comprises metal oxide nanoparticles, para [0099], Fig. 1); and
a (meth)acrylate compound (10, in forming the structure layer 10 of the optical sheet the curable resin composition comprises a UV-curable monomer, examples include: benzy1(meth)acrylate, para [0080], Fig. 1), wherein
the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet contains 40 mass% or more of the inorganic nanoparticles (10, the resin cured layer comprises metal oxide nanoparticles in an amount of 10-70% by weight, para [0099]),
a standard prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with a pattern of triangular prisms, para [0109], Fig. 1) made of a cured product of the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet (10, the structure layer is a resin cured layer and the curable resin comprises a UV-curable monomer, the structure layer is fabricated using the UV curable resin cured by an UV irradiator, paras [0080] and [0109], Fig. 1) has an indentation depth (hmax) (D1, “D1 is a depth to which the optical sheet is indented by external pressure,” para [0013], Fig. 1) of 8 μm or more (D1, Table 2, under Condition 2 the D1 column shows indentation depths of 8 μm or more for examples 1-7 which fall within the claimed range of 8 μm or more) at a maximum test force and an elastic deformation power (nlT) of 50% or more (the optical sheet has an elastic recovery rate of 80% or higher which is within the claimed range of 50% or more, para [0053], Table 2, Elastic Recovery Rate column, Fig. 2),
the standard prism sheet includes a transparent substrate layer (20, the substrate layer of the optical sheet is made of polyethylene terephthalate, which is a transparent polymer, paras [0085] and [0109], Fig. 1) and a micro concave-convex structure layer (10, the structure layer 10 has a plurality of steric structures which are a pattern of linear triangular prisms, paras [0050], [0092] and [0109], Figs. 1, 4 and 5),
the transparent substrate layer is polyethylene terephthalate (20, the substrate layer of the optical sheet is made of polyethylene terephthalate, paras [0085] and [0109], Fig. 1),
the micro concave-convex structure layer has a micro concave-convex structure with a period of 50 μm (10, the pattern of triangular prisms has a pitch of 50 µm, para [0109], Fig. 1) on a surface of the transparent substrate layer (10, 20, the structure layer is applied to the substrate layer to form the optical sheet, para [0086], Fig. 1), a unit structure of the micro concave-convex structure constitutes a unit prism (10, the structure layer is a pattern of triangular prisms, a singular prism is considered a unit prism, para [0109], Fig. 1), and a shape of the unit prism is an isosceles triangular prism shape (10, the unit prism is a triangular prism, para [0109], Fig. 1) having a height of 25 μm (10, the triangle prism has a height of 27 µm which is close to 25 µm, para [0109], Fig. 1), a base of 50 μm (10, triangle prism has a pitch of 50 µm, para [0109], Fig. 1), and an apex angle of 90° (10, the triangular prism has a vertex angle of 90°, para [0109], Fig. 1) in a cross section in a thickness direction (10, the cross section of the triangular prism is shown in Fig. 1),
for the unit prism, a large number of plurality of unit prisms are adjacently arranged (10, a pattern of linear triangular prisms, para [0109], Fig. 4) with an array period of 50 μm in a direction perpendicular to ridge lines (10, triangle prism has a pitch of 50 µm, the optical sheet is a three dimension sheet, thus the ridge lines are in/out of the page and the pitch is perpendicular to the ridge lines as shown in Fig. 4, para [0109], Fig. 4) such that the ridge lines of the respective unit prisms are balanced with each other in a plan view of the prism sheet (10, the linear triangle prisms with a 90° vertex are uniform triangular prisms that balance along the ridge lines that are uniformly spaced along the sheet, thus the unit prisms are balanced with each other in a plan view of the sheet, para [0109], Fig. 4), and
the indentation depth (hmax) at the maximum test force and the elastic deformation power (nlT) are obtained under the following measurement conditions:
indenter: 100 μm x 100 μm flat indenter
compressive force per second of flat indenter: 20 mN to 60 mN
maximum compressive force: 500 mN
stop time at maximum compressive force: 5 seconds to 10 seconds.
Moreover, the further limitations of claim 1 are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as with the flat indenter and the Condition 2 measurements as taught by Hwang (11, flat indenter having a diameter of 50mm and Condition 2, paras [0123] and [0128]-[0131], Table 2, Figs. 1-3). The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'Even 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) (citations omitted).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose active energy ray curing composition such that it contains 40 mass% or more of inorganic nanoparticles, which overlaps the disclosed range of metal oxide nanoparticles in an amount of 10-70% by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, composition containing inorganic nanoparticles is an art recognized results effective variable in that the curing composition containing an amount of nanoparticles achieve the desired refractive index and elastic properties of the optical sheet as taught by Hwang (paras [0078] and [0099]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the curing composition containing an amount of nanoparticles because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so achieves the desired refractive index and elastic properties of the optical sheet (Hwang, paras [0078] and [0099]).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of the triangle prism height of 27 µm which is so close to the claimed value of 25 µm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the triangle prism height such that the height is 25 µm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Hwang does not teach the transparent substrate layer having a thickness of 125 µm.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), wherein the transparent substrate layer (10, a base layer 10, para [0055], Figs. 1-3) having a thickness of 125 µm (10, the base layer made of polyethylene terephthalate has a thickness of 125 µm, para [0137], Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism sheet of Hwang with the transparent substrate having a thickness of 125 µm of Kim, because doing so improves mechanical strength, thermal stability and flexibility and to prevent the lass of transmitted light (para [0096]).
As to claim 8, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Hwang further teaches the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet according to claim 7, wherein a maximum point displacement is 2.1 % or more (D1, D, application of a force to a structure layer 10 compresses the upper surface of the structure layer 10 to a depth D1, and the ratio of D1 to D is preferably greater than 1/8, which is within the range of 2.1% or more, para [0092], Fig. 1) in a tearing test of a test piece formed of the cured product of the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet, and
the tearing test is performed according to JIS-K-7128-3 under the following measurement conditions:
shape of the test piece: a right-angle tearing test piece according to JIS-K-7128-3
thickness of the test piece: 200 μm ± 50 μm (value measured for each test piece)
preparation of the test piece: prepared by punching
distance between grips: 56 mm
test environment: 23 °C x 50% RH
test speed: 500 mm/min.
Moreover, the further limitations of claim 1 are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as with the flat indenter and the Condition 2 measurements as taught by Hwang (11, flat indenter having a diameter of 50mm and Condition 2, paras [0123] and [0128]-[0131], Table 2, Figs. 1-3). The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'Even 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) (citations omitted).”
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the maximum point displacement such that it is 2.1% or more, which overlaps the disclosed range of greater than 1/8, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the point displacement is an art recognized results effective variable in that the compression shows the optical sheet is flexible enough to pit as much as possible without being damaged by external impact as taught by Hwang (para [0092]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize maximum point displacement because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the compression shows the optical sheet is flexible enough to pit as much as possible without being damaged by external impact (Hwang, para [0092]).
As to claim 9, Hwang in view of Kim teaches the prism sheet according to claim 7, and Hwang further teaches the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are zirconia (the metal oxide nanoparticles are ZrO2, which is zirconium dioxide commonly known as zirconia, paras [0077] and [0109]).
As to claim 10, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.
Hwang does not teach the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet, further comprising: a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) an active energy ray curing composition (20, 30, a structure layer 20 is a resin cured layer and a resin cured layer 30 is formed on the structure layer 20, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 2) for a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), further comprising: a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition (30, the resin cured layer having a slippable element and the curable resin containing a slippable element is included in an amount of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, paras [0059] and [0066], Fig. 2).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a surface conditioner such that the parts by mass range from 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the surface conditioner composition is an art recognized results effective variable in that the amount is considered for preventing the deterioration of brightness as taught by Kim (para [0066]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of surface conditioner because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition of Kim, because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
As to claim 13, Hwang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2.
Hwang does not teach the prism sheet, wherein the active energy ray curing composition contains a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), wherein the active energy ray curing composition (20, 30, a structure layer 20 is a resin cured layer and a resin cured layer 30 is formed on the structure layer 20, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 2) contains a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition (30, the resin cured layer having a slippable element and the curable resin containing a slippable element is included in an amount of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, paras [0059] and [0066], Fig. 2).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a surface conditioner such that the parts by mass range from 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the surface conditioner composition is an art recognized results effective variable in that the amount is considered for preventing the deterioration of brightness as taught by Kim (para [0066]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of surface conditioner because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition of Kim, because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
As claim 14, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13.
Hwang does not teach the prism sheet, wherein the surface conditioner contains silicon.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), wherein the surface conditioner contains silicon (30, the resin cured layer 30 has a slippable element such as Si, para [0059], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner containing silicon of Kim, because the optical sheet is not damaged by external shock, is easily treated, reduces defective fractions and production costs, and can increase production efficiency (para [0035]).
As to claim 15, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Hwang further teaches the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet according to claim 8, wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are zirconia (the metal oxide nanoparticles are ZrO2, which is zirconium dioxide commonly known as zirconia, paras [0077] and [0109]).
As to claim 16, Hwang in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8.
Hwang does not teach the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet, further comprising: a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition.
Hwang and Kim are related as prism sheets.
However, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3) an active energy ray curing composition (20, 30, a structure layer 20 is a resin cured layer and a resin cured layer 30 is formed on the structure layer 20, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 2) for a prism sheet (10, 20, optical sheet with base layer 10 and structure layer 20 where the structures are prisms, paras [0055] and [0065], Figs. 1-3), further comprising: a surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition (30, the resin cured layer having a slippable element and the curable resin containing a slippable element is included in an amount of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, paras [0059] and [0066], Fig. 2).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a surface conditioner such that the parts by mass range from 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.01-5.0 part by weight, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the surface conditioner composition is an art recognized results effective variable in that the amount is considered for preventing the deterioration of brightness as taught by Kim (para [0066]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of surface conditioner because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active energy ray curing composition for a prism sheet of Hwang with the surface conditioner in a range of 0.1 parts by mass to 1.5 parts by mass in the composition of Kim, because doing so prevents the deterioration of brightness (para [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al., US 2010/0103529 A1, Sheet-Like Optical Member, Resin Composition for Optical Sheet, Optical Sheet and Method for Producing the Same, relevant to claims 1-16.
Jung et al., US 2023/0273477 A1, Liquid Crystal Display Apparatus, relevant to claims 1-16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./
JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights