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 Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the units of tensile modulus to be used in Equation 1 need to be specified as GPa. In claim 4, additional description of the puncture test needs to be provided. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 2018/0112671 A, published 12 Oct. 2018, hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-9, 14-18, and 20, Oh teaches a polyamide-imide film with excellent surface hardness, excellent mechanical properties, and high transparency, in which the polyamide-imide is a copolymer of an aromatic diamine, an aromatic dianhydride, and an aromatic dicarbonyl compound, and the proportion of amide repeat units in his copolymer is 50 to 70 mol% (Abstract). Oh teaches his polyamide-imide film has a surface hardness of H to 4H and a tensile strength (modulus) of 5 GPa or more with a thickness of 20 to 100 µm (claims 11 and 18). Oh teaches his film is suitable as a cover film for flexible displays (paragraph 0016). Oh teaches a polyamide-imide in which the aromatic diamine is TFDB and the aromatic dianhydride is 6FDA (paragraph 0025), and the aromatic dicarbonyl compound is TPC (paragraph 0078). In his teaching examples 1-4, Oh teaches compositions with dianhydride to dicarbonyl monomers of 0.43:1 to 1:1, and the mole number of the dicarbonyl compound is 50 to 70 mol% of the total number of moles of the dicarbonyl compound and dianhydride compound (paragraphs 0114-0123). Oh teaches the aromatic dianhydride may be more than one compound (paragraph 0062).
Thus, Oh teaches a polymer with an amide repeating unit (formed by the reaction of a diamine with a dicarbonyl or its halogenated derivative) and with an imide repeating unit (formed by the reaction of a diamine with a dianhydride), and his ratio of imide repeat units to amide repeat units is 30:70 to 50:50.
Oh does not disclose the product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus nor the puncture strength of his film. However, given that the optical film formed by the polyamide-imide film as taught by Oh has the same monomers and in the same relevant amounts as the claimed optical film, the optical film taught by Oh would inherently have the same product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the same puncture strength as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for the product of Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the claimed range for the puncture strength.
In light of the overlap between the claimed optical film and that disclosed by Oh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical film that is both disclosed by Oh and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby, arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Patent Application 2022/0243061 A1, priority 29 Jan. 2021, published 04 Aug. 2022, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claims 1-9, 14-17, and 19-20, Choi teaches a polyamide-imide film as a cover window on a display device (Abstract). Choi teaches his polyamide-imide formed from a diamine, a dianhydride, and a dicarbonyl (paragraph 0013). Choi teaches a film with a thickness of 50 µm (paragraph 0058). Choi teaches polyamide-imides with imide:amide ratios (dianhydride compound:dicarbonyl compound) of 2:98 to 50:50 (paragraph 0167). Choi teaches polyamide-imide copolymer composed of the monomers: TFMB (also known as TFDB), 6FDA, IPC, and TPC (Table 1).
Choi does not disclose the product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus nor the puncture strength of his film. However, given that the optical film formed by the polyamide-imide film as taught by Choi has the same monomers and in the same relevant amounts as the claimed optical film, the optical film taught by Choi would inherently have the same product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the same puncture strength as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for the product of Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the claimed range for the puncture strength.
In light of the overlap between the claimed optical film and that disclosed by Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical film that is both disclosed by Choi and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby, arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US Patent Application 2017/0342224 A1, published 30 Nov. Aug. 2017, hereinafter Chae).
Regarding claims 1-10, 12, and 14-20, Chae teaches a poly(amide-imide) film with a tensile modulus of 5.4 GPa or more for the window of a display device, in which the poly(amide-imide) is a reaction product of an aromatic dianhydride, including BPDA, CBDA, and 6FDA, an aromatic diamine, including TFDB, and an aromatic dicarbonyl compound, including TPC (Abstract and paragraph 0048). Chae teaches that diamines other than TFDB may be included, such as 3DDS and 4DDS (paragraph 0054). Chae teaches the aromatic dianhydride may include BPDA and 6FDA and may include one or more other aromatic dianhydrides (paragraph 0051). Chae teaches films with a tensile modulus of about 6.7 GPa for a film with thicknesses of about 50 µm (Figure 3). Chae teaches the dianhydride is 5 to 46 mole% of the total moles of the dianhydride, diamine, and dicarbonyl compound (paragraph 0057).
Thus, Chae teaches poly(amide-imide) copolymers in which the ratio of imide repeating units to amide repeating units is 1:9 (5:45) to 11.5:1 (46:4), and embodiments in which the dicarbonyl compound is less than 70 mole% of the total number of moles of the dianhydride compound and the dicarbonyl compound.
Chae does not disclose the product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus nor the puncture strength of his film. However, given that the optical film formed by the polyamide-imide film as taught by Chae has the same monomers and in the same relevant amounts as the claimed optical film, the optical film taught by Chae would inherently have the same product of the Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the same puncture strength as the claimed invention, and therefore, would fall within the claimed range for the product of Shore D hardness and tensile modulus and the claimed range for the puncture strength.
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 relative amounts of the monomers from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Chae because overlapping ranges have been held to be prima facie obviousness.
In light of the overlap between the claimed optical film and that disclosed by Chae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an optical film that is both disclosed by Chae and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Chae teaches the elements of claim 10 and 12, and Chae teaches that diamines other than TFDB may be included, such as 3DDS and 4DDS (paragraph 0054).
Chae does not disclose the amounts of 3DDS and/or 4DDS to include in his poly(amide-imide) copolymer. However, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with a minimum of experimental effort, vary the amount(s) of one or two of these additional diamines to optimize the desired properties of the resulting poly(amide-imide) films; and thereby, arrive at the claimed amounts of TFDB and 3DDS and/or 4DDS. Since Chae teaches 3DDS and 4DDS are further diamines, one of ordinary skill in the art would limit the total combined amounts of 3DDS and 4DDS to minority amounts, thus significantly reducing the amount of experimental effort to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ikeuchi and Kishida (US Patent Application 2017/0327654 A1, published 16 Nov. 2017) teaches an optical film of a polyamide-imide. Jang et al. (KR 2020/0083787 A, publsiehd 09 Jul. 2020) teaches a transparent film comprising a polyamide-imide copolymer with ranges of molar ratios for the monomers. Ju et al. (US Patent Application 2016/0319076 A1, published 03 Nov. 2016) teaches a transparent polyamide-imide film for flexible displays. Miyamoto et al. (WO 2018/135433 A1, published 26 Jul. 2018) teaches an optical film comprising a polyamide-imide resin. Mochizuki et al. (JP 2020/019936 A, published 06 Feb. 2020) teaches a polyamide-imide resin in an optical film. Ryu et al. (US Patent Application 2021/0189067 A1, published 24 Jun. 2021) teaches a colorless, transparent film comprising a polyamideimide copolymer.
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