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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification of the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of Claim 3 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to Claim 20 in the preliminary amendment filed 12/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/20/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because pf the following informalities:
Abstract, line 4- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 9-12 are 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 9 recites the limitation "the casting direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-11 are dependent on Claim 9, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the casting direction" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikaga (JP 2018-095715 A), of record.
Ikaga discloses an optical film (See for example Abstract) comprising a light-transmitting matrix (See for example Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation- polyimide resin); and a filler (See for example Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation- metal oxide filler) dispersed in the light-transmitting matrix, wherein the filler has a fiber-shape and has a ratio of B/A of 10 to 500 (See for example Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation- aspect ratio of 100 to 3000) wherein A represents a diameter of the filler and B represents a length of the filler. Ikaga further discloses the ratio of B/A is 100 to 400 (See for example Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation- aspect ratio of 100 to 3000); the filler has a diameter of 2 nm to 10 nm and a length of 200 nm to 4,000 nm (See for example Page 2, Paragraph 1 of English translation- aspect ratio of 100 to 3000, average diameter of 1 to 10 nm, which makes an average length of 100 to 30000nm); the filler comprises at least one of a glass fiber, an aluminum fiber, and a fluoride fiber (See for example Page 25, Paragraph 5- metal oxide filler can be silica or alumina); the filler comprises at least one of aluminum oxide hydroxide, SiO₂, Al2O₃, PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), or PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride) (See for example Page 25, Paragraph 5- metal oxide filler can be silica or alumina); the filler is present in an amount of 1 to 40% with respect to a total weight of the optical film (See for example Page 23, Paragraph 4- metal oxide filler present in an amount of 0.1-30% with respect to polyimide resin); the optical film has a yellowness index of 3 or less (See for example Page 35, Paragraph 1- yellowness index is 3% or less); the optical film has a haze of 4% or less (See for example Page 35, Paragraph 1- haze is 3% or less); the optical film has a light transmittance of 88% or more (See for example Page 35, Paragraph 1- light transmittance is 80% or greater); the light-transmitting matrix comprises at least one of an imide repeating unit or an amide repeating unit (See for example Page 3, Paragraph 8 to Page 4, Paragraph 3- light-transmitting matrix comprises a polyimide resin); and a display device comprising a display panel, and the above optical film disposed on the display panel (See for example Page 35, Paragraphs 2-6 to Page 36, Paragraph 1- Flexible display with attached polyimide film).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 8, 13-15 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.
Claims 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical film as generally set forth in Claims 1, 8, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 8, the optical film has a modulus of 6.3 GPa or more based on a sample with a size of 10 cm x 1 cm.
Claim 9 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical film as generally set forth in Claims 1, 9, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 9, the optical film has a ratio of Mm/Mt greater than 1, wherein Mm represents a modulus in a machine direction (MD) and Mt represents a modulus in a transverse direction (TD), wherein the machine direction (MD) is a direction parallel to the casting direction
of the optical film in a manufacturing process of the optical film and the transverse direction (TD) is a direction perpendicular to the machine direction (MD). Claims 10-11 are dependent on Claim 9, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 9 is allowable.
Claim 12 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical film as generally set forth in Claims 1, 12, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 12, the filler has a degree of machine direction (MD) orientation of 60 to 90%, wherein the machine direction (MD) is a direction parallel to the casting direction of the optical film in a manufacturing process of the optical film, and the degree of machine direction (MD) orientation is measured in accordance with the following conditions: FT-IR spectrometer: PerkinElmer spectrum 100; Veemax III with ATR and 45 degree ZnSe crystal; Incident angle: 80 degrees (air to crystal), polarization angle: 0 degrees.
Claim 13 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical film as generally set forth in Claims 1, 13, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 13, the optical film has electrical insulation property. Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 13, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 13 is allowable.
Claim 15 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical film as generally set forth in Claims 1, 15, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1, 15, the optical film has a Vickers hardness (Hv) of 40 MPa or more.
Claim 21 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a method of manufacturing an optical film as generally set forth in Claim 21, the method including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 21, adjusting a pH of the first mix solution to 5 to 7 to improve alignment characteristics of the filler; applying a pressure to the cast film; and drying the cast film while raising the temperature from 80°C to 120°C at a temperature elevation rate of 1°C/1 minute.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021-221118 A1 to Chen et al.- Imide resin composition that includes a fibrous alumina filter having an average fiber diameter of 4-30 nm and an average fiber length of 200-4000 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
8/29/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
