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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 8 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 8 recites the limitations "the surface protection film” and “the substrate” in lines 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitation in the claim. It is suggested these phrases be amended to recite “the conductive layer” and “the cellulose-based substrate film”.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano and Maeda (US Patent Application 2005/0221054 A1, published 06 Oct. 2005, hereinafter Kawano) as evidenced by Chemical Book (“Pentaerythritol Trimethacrylate,” accessed 07 Jul. 2026, hereinafter Chemical Book).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 8, Kawano teaches a laminated film for displays comprising a substrate, a hard coat (stabilization layer), an electrically conductive layer, and a fluorine-containing resin layer (Abstract and Figure 1, reproduced below). Kawano teaches his hard coat layer (stabilization layer) contains a (meth)acrylate that is radically polymerized by the application of activating light, and the (meth)acrylate comprises multifunctional (meth)acrylate having two or more (meth)acryloyl groups, such as pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate (paragraph 0022). Kawano teaches the thickness of his hard coat layer (stabilization layer) is 1 to 50 µm (paragraph 0024). Kawano teaches the use of (meth)acrylate resins in both his conductive layer and his hard coat layer (stabilization layer) (paragraphs 0022 and 0028). Kawano teaches his electrically conductive layer has a surface resistivity of 1x1011 ohm/[Wingdings font/0xA8] or less (paragraph 0035). Kawano teaches his display film is attached via an adhesive layer opposite the fluorine-containing resin layer to the front face of a plasma display panel (paragraphs 0006-0008).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawano, Figure 1
1- Multilayer film
2- Substrate film
3 – Hard coat layer
4 – Electrically conductive layer
5 – Fluorine-containing resin layer
6- Electrically conductive particles
7- Fine silica particles
As evidenced by Chemical Book, the molecular weight of pentaerythritol trimethacrylate is 340.4 (page 1).
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected surface resistivity and hard coat layer (stabilization layer) thickness from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Kawano because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Kawano does not disclose the relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity of his laminate. However, given that the optical laminate of Kawano has the same composition for his conductive layer as the claimed invention and the inclusion of a hard coat layer (stabilization layer), within the overlapping ranges, the optical laminate of Kawano would inherently have the same relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity.
In light of the overlap between the claimed optical laminate and that disclosed by Kawano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical laminate that is both disclosed by Kawano and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano and Maeda (US Patent Application 2005/0221054 A1, published 06 Oct. 2005, hereinafter Kawano) in view of Masumoto (US Patent Application 2013/0016047 A1, published 17 Jan. 2013, hereinafter Masumoto) as evidenced by Chemical Book (“Pentaerythritol Trimethacrylate,” accessed 07 Jul. 2026, hereinafter Chemical Book).
Regarding claim 7, Kawano teaches the elements of claim1.
Kawano teaches the use of his laminate with liquid crystal and plasma display panels (paragraph 0001).
Kawano does not specifically disclose use of his laminate with a front panel comprising a polarizer and a phase difference film.
Masumoto teaches a touch panel integrated display device including a touch panel, a polarizing layer, and a [Symbol font/0x6C]/4 phase retardation layer (phase difference film) (Abstract and paragraphs 0020-0021).
Given that Kawano and Masumoto are drawn to multi-layer display elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the touch panel integrated display device as taught by Masumoto as the display for the laminated film for display as taught by Kawano. Since Kawano and Masumoto are both drawn to multi-layer display elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the touch panel integrated display device as taught by Masumoto as the display for the laminated film for display as taught by Kawano. Further, Masumoto teaches his display design eliminates the need for a double-sided deposition step, thus simplifying the manufacturing process, reducing manufacturing time, and achieving higher productivity (paragraphs 0014 and 0022).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano and Maeda (US Patent Application 2005/0221054 A1, published 06 Oct. 2005, hereinafter Kawano) in view of Kim and Han (US Patent Application 2012/0274603 A1, published 01 Nov. 2012, hereinafter Kim) as evidenced by Chemical Book (“Pentaerythritol Trimethacrylate,” accessed 07 Jul. 2026, hereinafter Chemical Book).
Regarding claim 9, Kawano teaches the elements of claim 8.
Kawano teaches the use of his laminate with liquid crystal and plasma display panels (paragraph 0001).
Kawano does not specifically disclose use of his laminate with an in cell touch panel liquid crystal display.
Kim teaches an in-cell type touch panel (Abstract).
Given that Kawano and Kim are drawn to multi-layer display elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the in-cell type touch panel as taught by Kim as the display for the laminated film for display as taught by Kawano. Since Kawano and Kim are both drawn to multi-layer display elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the in-cell type touch panel as taught by Kim as the display for the laminated film for display as taught by Kawano. Further, Kim teaches his in-cell type touch panel has a modified electrode structure to make the difference of capacitance larger between before and after a touch for enhancing touch sensitivity by increasing the sizes of the sensor driving electrode and the sensor sensing electrode (paragraphs 0003 and 0038).
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani and Kato (US Patent Application 2007/0236631 A1, published 11 Oct. 2007, hereinafter Ohtani) and as evidenced by PubChem (“Trimethylolpropane Trimethacrylate,” accessed 08 Jul. 2026, hereinafter PubChem).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8, Ohtani teaches an antireflection film for an image display device comprising an electrically conductive layer, a cellulose support, and a light transmitting layer (stabilization layer), in which the light transmitting layer is composed of a resin curable by ultraviolet light-electron beam, and this layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 50 µm (Abstract and paragraphs 0022, 0056, and 0067). Ohtani teaches the resin in this layer comprises a polyfunctional trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (paragraph 0076). Ohtani teaches the conductive layer is close to the outermost layer (paragraph 0185); that is, this layer is on the viewer side of the substrate layer. Ohtani teaches the conductive layer contains 20 to 90 wt.% of electrically conductive inorganic fine particles (paragraph 0197). Thus, Ohtani teaches a composition with 25 (20*100/80) to 900 (90*100/10) parts mass of particles per 100 parts mass of ionizing radiation curable resin. Ohtani teaches a conductive layer with a surface resistivity on the order of 108 [Symbol font/0x57]/[Wingdings font/0xA8] (paragraph 0531). Ohtani teaches his antireflection film is attached to a display in order to widen the viewing angle of the display (paragraph 0013).
As evidenced by PubChem, the molecular weight of trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate is 338.4 (page 1).
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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected hard coat layer (stabilization layer) thickness and the amount of conductive particles in the conductive layer from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Ohtani because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
Ohtani does not disclose the relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity of his laminate. However, given that the optical laminate of Ohtani has the same composition of his conductive layer as the claimed invention and the inclusion of a light transmitting layer (stabilization layer), within the overlapping ranges, the optical laminate of Ohtani would inherently have the same relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for relative standard deviation of the surface resistivity.
In light of the overlap between the claimed optical laminate and that disclosed by Ohtani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical laminate that is both disclosed by Ohtani and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsunekawa (WO 2014/069377 A1, published 08 May 2014) teaches an optical laminate with the claimed surface resistivity, the claimed amount of conductive particles, and ionizing radiation curable resin. Shibayama and Yoshihara (US Patent Application 2012/0218637 A1, published 30 Aug. 2012) teaches an anti-reflection film comprising an antistatic layer with the claimed stabilization layer and its thickness and composition and the claimed surface resistivity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN VINCENT LAWLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9603. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 on 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.
/JOHN VINCENT LAWLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights