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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The meaning of claim 1 is unclear because it refers to a “phase difference” in line 8 without specifying with respect to what “phases” it is discussing or with respect to what “difference” is being measured. As such, it is not clear from the claim language if the “phase difference” refers to different types of phases (e.g. liquid versus solid, one polymer type versus another polymer type, etc.) within the resin layer or something else. For the sake of compact prosecution and based on the discussion in the instant disclosure (Applicant’s published application, par. 93-95), the “phase difference” of the claims is considered herein to be a measure of birefringence within the material. Appropriate correction and explanation are required.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it recites “wherein lengths of a first direction
and a second direction that intersect orthogonally within a plane of a main surface are
each 200 mm or greater”. This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if “within a plane of a main surface” refers to the “lengths” of first and second directions or to the intersection point, as is more literally claimed. If the second interpretation is correct, then the limitation has little meaning because “directions” can extend beyond a defined plane. Additionally, as “directions” are not materials or structures, it is also not clear if the claimed “directions” are actually required to be part of the recited glass laminate or not, or if the term is used to refer to some other structure or component within the plane. For the sake of compact prosecution, the “directions” are interpreted herein as a “length” and “width” of the claimed laminated glass.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from and/or require all of the limitations of claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui (WO 2021/075429 A1) alone or, optionally, in view of Hasebe (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0416556), which has an effective filing date of March 5, 2021.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, and 8, Matsui teaches a laminated glass (30), which may be used in a display, comprising a first glass layer (27), an adhesive layer-equipped functional film (10, 11, 15, 23, 25), and a second glass layer (29), arranged in that order (Fig. 4; par. 10, 46, 48, 49, 60, 61). The adhesive layer-equipped functional film (i.e. “adhesive layer-equipped functional film for laminated glass”) is an image display film and comprises a functional film (10) comprising a resin layer, a first adhesive layer (23) provided on one surface of the functional film, and a second adhesive layer (25) provided on another surface of the functional film (Fig. 4; par. 10, 48, 57, 60).
Although Matsui does not explicitly teach that the resin layer of the functional film demonstrates the recited phase difference, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Matsui does teach that the resin layer may be the cured product of a photocurable resin, including one or more of monofunctional acrylic resins such as isobornyl acrylate, polyfunctional acrylic resins such as tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate, and (meth)acrylate oligomers such as urethane (meth)acrylate having an average molecular weight in the range of 300 to 1000 Da (par. 15-18). Matsui further teaches various other (meth)acrylate components for his resin layer that are also discussed in the instant disclosure to be appropriate for the instantly claimed resin layer (Matsui, par. 15-18; Applicant’s published application, par. 98-112). Additionally, Matsui teaches that the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer, which may be tricyclodecane dimethanol diacrylate, may be up to 100 % of the total mass of the photocurable resin (par. 17). The instant disclosure also teaches that the proportion of “(meth)acrylate a”, which may be tricyclodecane dimethanol di(meth)acrylate, may be 100 % of the mass of the (meth)acrylic resin (Applicant’s published application par. 129). The instant disclosure further teaches that the resin layer, which is made from the above discussed (meth)acrylate component(s), has a phase difference in the thickness direction measured at a wavelength of 543 nm of not more than 100 nm (par. 93). As Matsui’s resin layer may comprise substantially the same or commensurate components, including the same components, to that of the instantly disclosed and claimed resin layer, Matsui’s resin layer is expected to demonstrate substantially the same phase difference as that of the instantly disclosed and claimed resin layer, including demonstrating a phase difference in the thickness direction measured at a wavelength of 543 nm of not more than 100 nm.
Hasebe also teaches an optical laminate and discloses that acrylic-based resin films are advantageous for various properties, including their low intrinsic phase difference characteristics, and that it is preferable for products, such as laminates used in displays, to have low phase difference characteristics (par. 2, 3). In his own material, Hasebe teaches that the phase difference in the thickness direction is preferably not more than 30 nm in order to decrease a suppression of contrast of a transmitted image (par. 220). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Matsui’s resin layer to demonstrate as low of a phase difference in the thickness direction as possible, including demonstrating a phase difference of less than 30 nm, because Hasebe teaches that low phase differences are advantageous and preferable in optical resin layers and laminates and makes no disclosure of there being a lower limit to a “low phase difference”, and in order to achieve a high contrast of images transmitted through the layer and laminate, as a whole. Although Hasebe’s phase differences are measured at 590 nm (par. 407), which might be considered a difference from the current invention, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the resin layer in Matsui’s product to have as low of a phase difference as possible, including having a phase differences of less than 30 nm, at any wavelength in the visible range, which includes 543 nm, because Matsui teaches using the layer and laminate in a display device, which is to be viewed by users who see in the visible wavelength range (i.e. 400 to 700 nm), and in order to achieve the best possible contrast of images at any and all visible wavelengths, including 543 nm, that may be displayed.
The teachings of Matsui also differ from the current invention in that he does not disclose the recombination of adhesive layer thicknesses. However, Matsui does teach that the adhesive layers may have a thickness in the range of 1 µm to 1 mm (par. 43) and the laminate of Figure 4 depicts the first adhesive layer (23) as having a smaller thickness than the second adhesive layer (25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the adhesive layers in Matsui’s product to have different thicknesses, each of which falls in the range of 1 µm to 1 mm, because Matsui depicts different adhesive layer thicknesses and, therefore implies, that different adhesive layer thicknesses are appropriate and teaches that adhesive layers should have a thickness of 1 µm to 1 mm. Therefore, the instantly claimed first adhesive layer thickness (T1), second adhesive layer thickness (T2), total (T1+T2), and relative thickness ranges (T1 relative to T2) are encompassed and rendered obvious by Matsui. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, as not criticality of the recited individual, total, and relative adhesive thickness ranges have been shown, the recited thicknesses are prima facie obvious selections of dimension that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select appropriate thicknesses within the taught range for the adhesive layers according to the required/desired properties for each layer and the laminate as a whole. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Matsui’s resin layer preferably has a tensile modulus (“tensile modulus of elasticity”) of 1 to 5 GPa at 20 °C (par. 19).
Although Matsui does not specify the tensile modulus at 25 °C, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, the tensile modulus of the resin layer expected to be very similar (or substantially the same) and to still anticipate or overlap and render obvious (see MPEP 2144.05) the claimed range at 25 °C because 25 °C is very close in temperature to 20 °C, because the resin layer materials disclosed by Matsui would not be expected to undergo any substantial transformations (e.g. softening, melting, or other property changes) between 20 and 25 °C, and because the instant disclosure teaches that a resin material made from substantially the same or commensurate materials as Matsui (discussed above) demonstrates a tensile modulus of elasticity of not more than 5 GPa at 25 °C (Applicant’s published application, par. 137). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate tensile modulus for Matsui’s layer at any normal/comfortable operating temperature, including 25 °C, according to the thickness and level of crack resistance required/desired for the film because Matsui demonstrates that tensile modulus is a result-effective variable for such parameters (par. 19) and because Matsui teaches that the laminate and its resin film intended to be used in a display (par. 10, 24-26, etc.), which is likely to be viewed at temperatures comfortable to humans (e.g. 25 °C).
Regarding claim 6, although Matsui does not explicitly teach a film or laminate including the above-discussed features that also has one or more polyvinyl butyral (PVB) resin adhesive layers, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Matsui does teach that polyvinyl butyral is a preferred material for his adhesive layers from the viewpoints of heat and weather resistance (par. 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PVB resin for one or both of Matsui’s adhesive layers, thereby forming PVB resin adhesive layers, to achieve good heat and weather resistance.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Matsui differ from the current invention in that a laminate glass having dimensions that achieve orthogonally-intersecting “directions” (which are considered herein to correspond to a length and width) of 200 mm in the plane of the of the main surface of the glass is not explicitly taught. However, Matsui does teach using his product for video displays (par. 10, 24-26, etc.), which are frequently larger than 200 mm in various directions, including their length and width, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in Matsui’s (and the average consumer’s) art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Matsui’s glass laminate to be sized such a main surface of the glass has a length and width (i.e. lengths of intersecting “directions”) of 200 mm or greater in order to create a video display that is in a common size range and according to the desired/required size of an image that is intended to be displayed. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the recited lengths are prima facie obvious selections of dimensions that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights