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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 includes the phrase “the number of foreign substances,” but the claim lacks antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, does not recite the inclusion of foreign substances. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as comprising “a number of foreign substances”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakellarides et al (US2013/0344345A1).
With regards to claim 1, Sakellarides discloses a bio-based polyester window film comprising a polyester formed from bio-based ethylene glycol and bio-based terephthalic acid, each derived from plant sugar (i.e., a polyester film comprising a layer comprising a biomass polyethylene terephthalate resin composition, the biomass polyethylene terephthalate resin composition comprising a polyethylene terephthalate whose starting materials comprise ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, at least one of which is derived from a biomass resource) (Sakellarides: para. [0002], [0018], [0026], and [0028]; claim 1). The bio-based polyester window film of Sakellarides further includes 2,2′-(1,4-phenylene)bis([3,1]benzoxazin-4-one) as an ultraviolet absorber (i.e., an ultraviolet absorbent comprising a cyclic imino ester-based ultraviolet absorber) (Sakellarides: para. [0027]; claims 1-2 and 4).
With regards to claim 4, Sakellarides further discloses the bio-based polyester window film as comprising layers A, B, and C of bio-based polyester attached in direct contact with one another (i.e., a polyester film comprising three polyester resin layers that include a first surface layer on a first side, a second surface layer on a side opposite the first side, and an intermediate layer). To this end, Sakellerides acknowledges an embodiment in which layer B includes an ultraviolet absorber, and the inclusion of ultraviolet absorbers in layers A and C appears optional (i.e., providing sufficient reduction to practice of a bio-based polyester film including an intermediate layer – in this case, layer B – being the only layer including an ultraviolet absorber as claimed).
With regards to claim 10, Sakellarides discloses its polyester film as a protective material, and as best understood, the polyester film of Sakellarides is a base film (i.e., as a film by itself is a base film) (Sakellarides: para. [0046]-[0047]). It is submitted that the polyester film of Sakellarides is capable of meeting the claimed intended use of “for a polarizing film” in that the film of Sakellarides is capable of, for example, protecting an adjacent material (such as a polarizing film) from UV radiation (Sakellarides: para. [0046]-[0047]).
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.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakellarides et al as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 5, Sakellarides discloses a polyester film according to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Although Sakellarides is not explicit as to a light transmittance of 20% or less at 380 nm, Sakellarides expressly teaches a light transmittance of less than 6% within the range of 310 nm to 380 nm. Sakellarides also desires low light transmittance at the wavelength of 380 nm, specifically, indicating that UV radiation should be rejected at values of up to 380 nm. As best understood from the totality of Sakellarides, a transmittance of less than 6% would have been desirable, and therefore obvious, at a value of 380 nm, specifically. Alternatively, the ranges disclosed by Sakellarides overlap the claimed ranges, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 7, the polyethylene terephthalate resin of Sakellarides has a COOH content (i.e., carboxyl terminal concentration) of 5 to 20 eq/ton, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 eq/ton or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 8, the polyethylene terephthalate resin of Sakellarides has a COOH content (i.e., carboxyl terminal concentration) of 5 to 20 eq/ton, which overlaps the claimed range of 100 eq/ton or less, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US2015/0185384A1) in view of Sakellarides et al.
With regards to claim 9, Watanabe discloses a laminated film comprising a hard coating layer on at least one surface of a thermoplastic resin substrate, the thermoplastic resin substrate being made of, for example, a polyester resin such as polyethylene terephthalate and/or a bio-based material such as cellulose (Watanabe: para. [0012]-[0013], [0033], and [0044]-[0045]).
Watanabe does not appear to disclose its laminated polyester film as comprising a polyester film according to claim 1, specifically.
Sakellarides discloses a bio-based polyester window film comprising a polyester formed from bio-based ethylene glycol and bio-based terephthalic acid, each derived from plant sugar (i.e., a polyester film comprising a layer comprising a biomass polyethylene terephthalate resin composition, the biomass polyethylene terephthalate resin composition comprising a polyethylene terephthalate whose starting materials comprise ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid, at least one of which is derived from a biomass resource) (Sakellarides: para. [0002], [0018], [0026], and [0028]; claim 1). The bio-based polyester window film of Sakellarides further includes 2,2′-(1,4-phenylene)bis([3,1]benzoxazin-4-one) as an ultraviolet absorber (i.e., an ultraviolet absorbent comprising a cyclic imino ester-based ultraviolet absorber) (Sakellarides: para. [0027]; claims 1-2 and 4). The window film of Sakellarides may be used in an electronic structure requiring transparency in addition to moisture or gas barrier properties (Sakellarides: para. [0003]-[0004]). Sakellarides and Watanabe are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of transparent protective substrates/covers for use in electronic devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the bio-based polyester window film material of Sakellarides for the polyester of Watanabe, in order to provide improved gas and moisture barrier properties, UV protection, and recyclability to the laminated film of Watanabe, and further, since Watanabe instructs a person of ordinary skill to select a polyester (i.e., a person of ordinary skill is broadly instructed by Watanabe to select a polyester, and therefore, selection of a known polyester would have been both obvious and inevitable) (Sakellarides: para. [0003]-[0005], [0051], and [0060]).
With regards to claim 10, the laminated polyester film of Watanabe and Sakellarides is a protective film for polarizing film (Watanabe: para. [0001] and [0059]; clam 1).
With regards to claim 11, the protective film comprises a hard coating layer (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, Watanabe discloses its laminated film as a polarizer comprising a protective film and a protective film for a polarizing film (i.e., and therefore, Watanabe and Sakellarides teach the protective film according to claim 10 on the polarizing film) (Watanabe: para. [0059]).
With regards to claim 13, the laminated polyester film is used in a liquid crystal display device (i.e., an image display device) (Watanabe: para. [0085]).
With regards to claim 14, the laminated polyester film is used in a liquid crystal display device (Watanabe: para. [0085]).
With regards to claim 15, the laminated polyester film is used in an organic EL device (Watanabe: para. [0085]).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating distinguishing subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Sakellarides et al (US2013/0344345A1) and Watanabe (US2015/0185384A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Sakellarides fails to disclose or teach both the claimed in-plane retardation of 3000 to 30000 nm and the claimed ratio of in-plane retardation in the range of 0.2 or more and 1.2 or less. Per the present specification, the claimed in-plane retardation properties are achieved based on a combination of specific compositional values such as acid ratio, and specific process parameters including, stretching ratio, thickness, stretching temperature, and subsequent heat treatment. Sakellarides broadly teaches biaxial stretching, in addition to the claimed polyester and UV absorber. However, Sakellarides does not teach Applicant’s acid ratio, stretching ratio, thickness, stretching temperature, or heat treatment. Therefore, Sakellarides cannot be considered to inherently possess Applicant’s in-plane retardation properties. In addition, Sakellarides does not provide the requisite teachings necessary to obviate the claimed in-plane retardation via optimization.
Watanabe teaches away from the claimed in-plane retardation, as Watanabe requires in-plane retardation values of, for example, 0 to 240 nm (i.e., values significantly outside the range of present claim 2). Watanabe also does not teach a specific ratio Re/Rth, and further, it is unclear from Watanabe how any Re and Rth values should be balanced against one another. Watanabe additionally fails to teach the compositional and process requirements which lead to the claimed ratio Re/Rth (i.e., Watanabe does not provide further teachings to establish a case of inherency). It is furthermore unclear if the claimed retardation ratio is achievable by the composition of Sakellarides according to the teachings of Watanabe (i.e., Watanabe is not concerned with the bio-based materials of Sakellarides, and it is clear from the present disclosure that the biological origin of the claimed polyester influences the claimed retardation ratio).
Regarding claim 6, although Sakellarides acknowledges the inclusion of particles, Sakellarides teaches that incorporating particles with a size at or below the range of visible light wavelength (i.e., below the claimed range) is necessary, in order to prevent light diffraction and haze. As best understood from Sakellarides, incorporation of foreign substances (i.e., particles, per the present specification) according to the present claims would result in higher haze (which is taught as undesirable by Sakellarides).
Watanabe acknowledges the selection of particles, but each of the particles of Watanabe are outside the claimed size range. Therefore, Watanabe is not considered to teach a particle size of above 50 microns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights