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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2021221118).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12, Chen et al. teaches a laminated film having excellent optical characteristics, i.e. optical film and made from a resin composition comprising a resin component and a fibrous alumina filler, and wherein the resin component contains a resin that has an imide structure and an amide structure; and the fibrous alumina filler is dispersed in the resin composition, while having an average fiber diameter of from 4 nm to 30 nm and an average fiber length of from 200 nm to 4,000 nm (See Abstract). Chen et al. discloses the polyamine-imide resin has colorless transparency (page 6), i.e. light-transmitting matrix.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see MPEP 2144.05.
Given the overlap between the film of Chen et al. and that presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a film that is both disclosed by Chen et al. and encompassed by the present claims and thereby arrive that the claimed invention.
Given that Chen et al. teaches a laminated film made from materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, the laminated film of Chen et al. would necessarily have the creep index as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. teaches an average fiber diameter of from 4 nm to 30 nm and an average fiber length of from 200 nm to 4,000 nm which clearly results in an aspect ratio as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. teaches an amount of fibrous alumina filler is 4 to 50% by mass which would necessarily overlap the claimed range of 3 to 50 phr, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 9, given that Chen et al. teaches a laminated film made from materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, the laminated film of Chen et al. would necessarily have the Martens hardness as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 10, given that Chen et al. teaches a laminated film made from materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, the laminated film of Chen et al. would necessarily have the Vickers hardness as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 11, given that Chen et al. teaches a laminated film made from materials and structure identical to those presently claimed, the laminated film of Chen et al. would necessarily have the creep stress as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. teaches a display member for display panels having the laminated film as a cover window (page 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights