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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than a single paragraph. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, this claim recites “elastic-to-plastic ratio” of “70% or more”. In view of the specification, it is unclear what is meant by this recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO2022102736 A1 (US 20230399479 A1 to Yokoyama is relied upon as English equivalent document in the Office action).
As to claim 1 limitation “A hardcoat-less film”, the examiner submits the specification at 0022 describes the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Yokoyama discloses a laminated film having high level of surface hardness, excellent bendability, and excellent scratch resistance; an image display including the laminated film; and a flexible device (0001). Further, the laminated film of Yokoyama includes a support and a resin layer (hardcoat-less film) laminated on at least one surface of the support (0044).
As to claim 1, Yokoyama is silent as to disclosing properties (elastic-to-plastic ratio of 70% or more, Tg and Tm each are neither lower than nor equal to 200°C, at least one condition of Young’s modulus of 1,000 MPa or more in an indentation test or a Young’s modulus is from 1,000 to 5,000 MPa in a tensile test). However, it is reasonable to presume that the claimed properties are inherently present in the film of Yokoyama. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). The claimed film is formed of a cured product of a curable composition, wherein the curable composition comprises a cationically polymerizable silsequioxane. See 0013 and 0015 of the specification. Yokoyama discloses that the resin layer is formed of a cured product of a curable composition (0102), wherein the curable composition contains cationically polymerizable silsequioxane (0108, 0110). Given that the hardcoat-less films of the claimed invention and the prior art of Yokoyama are identical or substantially identical, absent any factual evidence on the record, it would be reasonable to presume that the claimed properties are inherently present in the film of Yokoyama. Alternatively, the claimed properties would obviously be present once the film of Yokoyama is provided.
As to claim 2, Yokoyama discloses that film has a thickness of from 1 to 100 μm (0103). Further, as to the claimed property of indentation hardness, as set forth previously, the hardcoat-less films of the claimed invention and the prior art of Yokoyama are identical or substantially identical, absent any factual evidence on the record, it would be reasonable to presume that the claimed properties are inherently present in the film of Yokoyama. Alternatively, the claimed properties would obviously be present once the film of Yokoyama is provided.
As to claim 3 and 4, Yokoyama discloses that the resin layer is formed of a cured product of a curable composition (0102), wherein the curable composition contains cationically polymerizable silsequioxane (0108, 0110). Given that the hardcoat-less films of the claimed invention and the prior art of Yokoyama are identical or substantially identical, absent any factual evidence on the record, it would be reasonable to presume that the claimed properties of the Tg of 300°C or more and pencil hardness of 2H or more are inherently present in the film of Yokoyama. Alternatively, the claimed properties would obviously be present once the film of Yokoyama is provided.
As to claim 5, Yokoyama discloses that the curable composition comprises radical curable polyorganosiloane (0265).
As to claim 6, Yokoyama discloses that the curable composition comprises cationically polymerizable silsequioxane (0108, 0110).
As to claim 7, Yokoyama discloses that the curable composition further contains an additional component such as a compound having one or more photopolymerizable functional groups (0111).
As to claim 8, Yokoyama as set forth previously discloses a laminated film (0044). Further, Yokoyama discloses that the functional layers are provided on the resin layer (0346).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022102736 A1 (US 20230399479 A1 to Yokoyama is relied upon as English equivalent document in the Office action), as applied to claim 8 above.
As to claims 9 and 10, Yokoyama discloses an image display device including the laminated film (0352). As to claim 9, while Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose layered structure of the plurality of laminated films, the examiner submits that “plurality of laminates” includes e.g. two laminated film. Yokoyama as set forth previously discloses at least one laminated film in the image display device. Absent any new and unexpected results more duplication of parts has no patentable significance, and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to arrive at the multilayer laminate and the display device comprising the multilayer laminate, motivated by the desire to provide additional surface hardness etc. to the resultant display device including such multilayer laminate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yokoyama (US 20250248280 A1) discloses a laminate, laminated film, a display device, and a foldable device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights