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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 22, 2026, has been entered.
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, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0348408 Serizawa et al in view of US 2013/0027641 Kodama et al.
Regarding claim 1, Serizawa teaches an anti-glare film (paragraph 0003) comprising:
a light-transmitting substrate 1 (paragraph 0021); and
a hard coating layer 2 containing a binder resin, organic fine particles (paragraph 0025) and only one type of inorganic fine particles (paragraph 0036 teaching that the first particles are silica, alumina and/or zinc oxide, and paragraph 0038 teaching that the second particles may be mica or smectite, among others, where both mica and smectite are compounds made of silica and alumina such that an embodiment using only smectite, for example, would satisfy both first and second inorganic particles and meet the claim),
wherein the organic fine particles and the inorganic fine particles are dispersed in the binder resin (paragraph 0025),
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the anti-glare film has an external haze value of 10.1 to 27.4%, an internal haze value of 5.3 to 29.5%, and a ratio of internal haze to external haze of 0.26 to 2.0 (Table 4 Examples, reproduced above, where the total haze is the sum of the external and internal haze and Examiner has added the external haze and ratio columns).
Serizawa teaches a lower external haze limit of 10.1%. Since the claimed upper limit of 9.8% is close to the prior art lower limit of 10.1%, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the anti-glare film’s haze performance in the prior art range of 10.1 to 27.4% would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges read on the claimed ranges:
Internal haze of 5.3 to 29.5% reads on 11.5 to 13.6%, and
Ratio of 0.26 to 2.0 reads on 1.3 to 1.5.
Serizawa does not explicitly teach the total aggregation amount or aggregation amount at different positions. However, Serizawa does teach that the aggregation is controlled by the amount of inorganic particles included (paragraph 0036). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific aggregation of the organic fine particles is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method and composition, the precise aggregation total and at different positions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed aggregation cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the aggregation of the organic fine particles to obtain the desired optical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Serizawa does not teach the distances of the particles from the surface. Serizawa does, however, teach that the thickness of the hard coating layer may be 100%-140% the average particle size (paragraph 0044), such that the hard coating layer is thick enough to allow for different distances. Kodama teaches an anti-glare film, where two adjacent organic (paragraphs 0085 and 0162) fine particles aggregating with each other are located at different distances from one surface of the hard coating layer (figure 5).
Serizawa does not teach the optical microscope positions. Serizawa does, however, teach that the thickness of the hard coating layer may be 100%-140% the average particle size (Serizawa paragraph 0044), such that the hard coating layer is thick enough to allow for different microscope positions. Kodama teaches an anti-glare film, where two adjacent organic fine particles aggregating with each other have a focus on respective optical microscopes at different positions with respect to a thickness direction on the basis of one surface of the hard coating layer (figure 10-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the different particle distances of Kodama in the product of Serizawa because these different distances allow for varied light transmission and reflectance (Kodama paragraph 0044), which provides for better anti-glare functionality.
Serizawa further teaches that the hard coating thickness is 100-140% the size of the particles (paragraph 0044). Therefore, Serizawa in view of Kodama teaches that two adjacent organic fine particles among the two or more organic fine particles aggregating with each other are located with a distance difference of 0 to 0.12 microns from one surface of the hard coating layer (paragraph 0044 teaching that the hard coating thickness is 100-140% the size of the particles, paragraph 0033 teaching a particle size of 0.3-10 microns, such that even at the smallest size of 0.3 microns, a 140% thickness would be 0.42 microns thick such that the distance difference would be 0 to 0.12 microns). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0 to 0.12 microns reads on the claimed range of at least 0.1 microns.
Regarding claim 6, Serizawa teaches that the hard coating layer has a thickness of 1 to 12 microns (paragraph 0043). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 1 to 12 microns reads on the claimed range of 1 to 10 microns.
Regarding claim 7, Serizawa teaches that the organic fine particles have a diameter of 0.3 to 10 microns (paragraph 0033), and a refractive index of 1.40 to 1.75 (paragraph 0030). Serizawa does not explicitly teach the wavelength at which the refractive index is measured. However, it would have been reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a wavelength in the visible light range because the anti-glare film is being used in the visible light range.
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0.3 to 10 microns reads on the claimed range of
0.5 to 6 microns, and the taught range of 1.40-1.75 reads on the claimed range of 1.500 to 1.600.
Regarding claim 8, Serizawa teaches that the inorganic fine particles have a diameter of 0.01 to 0.2 microns (10-200 nm, paragraphs 0037 and 0038).
Regarding claim 9, Serizawa teaches that the binder resin includes a polymer of (meth)acrylate-based monomer (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 10, Serizawa teaches that the hard coating layer contains 5 to 13 parts by weight of the organic fine particles based on 100 parts by weight of the binder resin (Table 1, where the sum of the first and second organic fine particles is the total weight).
Regarding claim 15, Serizawa teaches that two adjacent organic fine particles among the two or more organic fine particles aggregating with each other are located with a distance difference of 0 to 0.12 microns from one surface of the hard coating layer (paragraph 0044 teaching that the hard coating thickness is 100-140% the size of the particles, paragraph 0033 teaching a particle size of 0.3-10 microns, such that even at the smallest size of 0.3 microns, a 140% thickness would be 0.42 microns thick such that the distance difference would be 0 to 0.12 microns). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0 to 0.12 microns reads on the claimed range of at least 0.1 microns.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0348408 Serizawa et al in view of US 2013/0027641 Kodama et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0260882 Furui et al.
Regarding claim 11, Serizawa teaches the anti-glare film, but does not teach the retardation amount. Furui teaches a display panel with anti-glare properties (abstract), including a thickness direction retardation of 3,000 nm to 30,000 nm (paragraph 0214). Furui does not explicitly teach the wavelength at which the refractive index is measured. However, it would have been reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a wavelength in the visible light range because the anti-glare film is being used in the visible light range.
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 3,000-30,000 nm reads on the claimed range of
at least 3,000 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the retardation amount of Furui in the product of Serizawa because this prevents color unevenness in the product (paragraph 0214).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the data shows unexpected results for the sparkle and image clarity. However, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
1. The claim allows for different particle sizes while all inventive examples use organic fine particles of 3.5 microns.
2. The data uses different solvent types and combinations, but is not limited by the claims.
3. The data uses different particle amounts for both inorganic and organic fine particles, but this is also not limited by the claim.
Furthermore, provided data is generally expected to show points outside the claimed range, inside the claimed range and at end points of the range such that Examiner can determine a general trend from which to establish criticality. Applicant has not provided sufficient data. Similarly, the single point of 3.5 micron particles is not sufficient to represent the entire claimed range. Therefore, the provided data is not sufficient to show unexpected results in line with the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the 0.1 micron range is not arbitrary. However, Applicant has not shown how this distance is critical. Lacking evidence of criticality, Applicant has not shown that Examiner’s obviousness finding is in error.
Finally, Applicant argues that the taught haze would lead one away from the haze of the invention. However, it is unclear how this is so. The prior art does not explicitly teach why haze under 10.1% would be undesirable. The prior art also teaches haze as low as 10.1%, a value only 4% different from the claimed 9.8%. Applicant has not shown that the claimed haze values are significant or critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781