DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This action is responsive to the amendments, arguments, and remarks filed on 04/15/2025. The amendment has been entered. Applicant has submitted Claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-27 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-27 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive except as regards to Applicant’s Argument (V) below.
Applicant’s Arguments:
(I) Applicant maintains that the rejection’s use of Ishido and Kusahara is incorrect.
(II) The sole purples of the infrared non-transmissive member of Kusahara is to block infrared rays.
(III) There is no reason to apply “the design layer comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo-based compound and a pervlene-based compound as the colorant” to the infrared non-transmitting member 3 of Kusahara when it is combined with Ishido.
(IV) Hara does not possess a design layer nor any guidance as to how the inorganic particles 1 should be processed or arranged to form a design layer.
(V) There is no reasonable basis to apply the structure of Hara as the infrared non-transmitting member 3 of Kusahara, and even if such a combination reasonable could be made, it would not result in the first design component layer of Claim 22.
Examiner’s Responses:
(I) Applicant maintains that the rejection’s use of Ishido and Kusahara is incorrect.
Examiner notes that this dispute over this combination has been ongoing with little agreement between Applicant and Examiner. In an attempt to better lay out the disagreement, Examiner provides the following summary and explanation.
In the previous action, Examiner mapped the infrared non-transmissive member 3 (hereinafter, “member 3”) of Kusahara (JP2018044991A) to the design layer. Applicant asserts that Kusahara’s member 3 is configured as a frame around the outer periphery of the infrared transmitting member 2, and does not go over the surface as claimed.
Examiner notes that Kusahara discloses in [0036]:
The arrangement position of the infrared non-transmissive member 3 serving to block infrared rays is not particularly limited, and the infrared non-transmissive member 3 may be disposed at a position other than the peripheral portion.
Additionally, in [0040]:
Part of the infrared non-transmissive member 3 may be made different in color from other parts, and visible information such as a logo may be represented in the infrared non-transmissive member 3.
It is clear to Examiner from the above that Kusahara discloses a design layer that is more than just the outer periphery and suggests modifying the layer for additional purposes. Shown in FIG. 9 of Kusahara:
PNG
media_image1.png
455
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that member 3b is explicitly not on the periphery of optical unit 20. Examiner agrees that Kusahara, on its own, does not disclose the transmittance as claimed, but Examiner notes that Examiner is not relying on Kusahara for those limitations (see (II) below). Kusahara discloses a design layer that goes over the surface akin to the claimed design layer. As such, Examiner maintains the mapping that Kusahara’s member 3 to the claimed design layer, and thus maintains the rejection.
(II) The sole purpose of the infrared non-transmissive member 3 of Kusahara is to block infrared rays.
Examiner, generally, does not disagree with the general function of the member 3 of Kusahara. As used in the combination, Examiner is showing the use of similar non-transmissive layers as described in the claimed invention. Examiner acknowledges that the design layer, as claimed, has capabilities that member 3 does not.
However, as mapped, the primary reference Ishido does disclose those capabilities. The use of the claimed materials to create a design layer that has particular transmission and non-transmission is known from Ishido. Examiner relies on Kusahara to show that a layer in the manner claimed that is not explicitly described by Ishido does exist elsewhere, and Examiner understands that PHOSITA would know how to apply the teaching of layers from Ishido to the member 3 of Kushara. As such, Examiner maintains the combination and the rejection.
(III) There is no reason to apply “the design layer comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo-based compound and a pervlene-based compound as the colorant” to the infrared non-transmitting member 3 of Kusahara when it is combined with Ishido.
Examiner does not agree. Simply, Ishido discloses the use of these materials for the claimed purpose in a similar use, and Examiner argues that PHOSITA would have the knowledge and skills to apply those materials and adapt to the member 3 of Kusahara. More plainly, Examiner understands that PHOSITA can take the materials of Ishido for layers and apply it to the layer introduced by Kusahara. Such a leap seems reasonable and common. As such, Examiner maintains the rejection.
(IV) Hara does not possess a design layer nor any guidance as to how the inorganic particles 1 should be processed or arranged to form a design layer.
Examiner, generally, does not disagree that Hara does not discuss a design layer. Examiner references Hara not for the design layer, but for the material and composition of the material. Examiner understands that PHOSITA would have the ability to incorporate the materials of Hara into the teaching of Ishido and Kusahara.
However, for a more thorough showing of reasonableness, Examiner directs Applicant to Hara [0077], which discusses how the material “can undergo plastic deformation, i.e., a solid material with plasticity,” and also notes “resins such as thermoplastic resins and thermosetting resins.” Even if Hara does not explicitly disclose how to process or arrange the material to form a design layer, Hara clearly indicates that these are workable materials that PHOSITA would understand how to work with and arrange. As such, Examiner maintains the rejection.
(V) There is no reasonable basis to apply the structure of Hara as the infrared non-transmitting member 3 of Kusahara, and even if such a combination reasonable could be made, it would not result in the first design component layer of Claim 22.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 22 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 10-11, 13, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishido (JP2019032351A), in view of Hara (US20120164413A1), and in further view of Kusahara (JP2018044991A).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishido discloses:
An infrared sensor (Ishido, FIG. 12 and [0062], near infrared light emitting unit 2) comprising:
a casing that has a window part (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], optical filter 10);
an infrared light emitting element (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], near infrared light emitting unit 2) and an infrared light receiving element disposed in the casing (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], near infrared light receiving unit 3); and
a protective cover provided for the window part and disposed in front of the infrared light emitting element and the infrared light receiving element (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], housing 4 and optical filter 10), wherein
the protective cover comprises a resin panel (Ishido, FIG. 1, [0069], resin 15) that comprises a core layer (Ishido, FIG. 1, [0072], “wavelength selective absorption layer 11);
the resin panel further comprises an antireflection layer on a surface on one side thereof (Ishido, FIGS. 10-11, [0057], “The dielectric multilayer films 17, 17a and 17b may have, for example, a reflection preventing function with respect to near infrared light and light of the above first near infrared wavelength band”), and is disposed so that the side provided with the antireflection layer faces the infrared light emitting element and infrared light receiving element (Ishido, FIGS. 10-12, showing that dielectric multilayer film 17a can be on the side facing near infrared light emitting unit 2 and near infrared light receiving unit 3); …
…the resin panel has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 905 nm of 85% or more (Ishido, FIG. 14, [0075], “the optical filter 10 of the present example has a small variation in the straight-ahead transmittance for light in the near infrared region, particularly at a wavelength of 870 to 1000 nm, and maintains a high level of 85% or more for light in any wavelength region”) …
… comprising a colorant defining pattern (Ishido, [0025], “The dye 14 may be, for example, only a black dye, or two or more kinds such as a black dye and a green dye. Examples of black dyes include perylene dyes (perylene dyes), azo dyes, azine dyes, anthraquinone dyes, perinone dyes, and quinoline dyes” (emphasis added)) …
… the design layer comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo-based compound and a pervlene-based compound as the colorant (Ishido, [0025], “The dye 14 may be, for example, only a black dye, or two or more kinds such as a black dye and a green dye. Examples of black dyes include perylene dyes (perylene dyes), azo dyes, azine dyes, anthraquinone dyes, perinone dyes, and quinoline dyes” (emphasis added)).
Ishido discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a water contact angle of the surface of the antireflection layer is 100 degrees or more; and …
However, Hara, in a similar field of endeavor (inorganic particle composite bodies), discloses:
… a water contact angle of the surface of the antireflection layer is 100 degrees or more (Hara, [0228], “having a contact angle with water greater than 60 degree”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishido with the water contact angle of Hara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various water contact angles as disclosed by Hara and how to use them to modify Ishido. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of water contact angles to manipulate and control light.
The combination of Ishido and Hara discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a design layer is provided on an entire surface of the core layer; …
… a visible light transmittance of 20% or less at an area where the pattern of the design layer is provided on the core layer, and …
However, Kusahara, in a similar field of endeavor (optical unit including an infrared transmitting device and an infrared transmitting device), discloses:
… a design layer is provided on an entire surface of the core layer (Kusahara, FIGS. 4 – 5, [0034], infrared non-transmitting member 3, and [0035], “The infrared non-transmissive member 3 is provided so as to cover a part of the first surface 13 of the translucent base material 1”); …
… a visible light transmittance of 20% or less at an area where the pattern of the design layer is provided on the core layer (Kusahara, FIGS. 4 -5, [0037], “the infrared non-transmissive member 3 has a transmittance of 10% or less (more preferably 5% or less, more preferably 1% or less)”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido and Hara with the design layer of Kusahara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of design layers as disclosed by Kusahara and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido and Hara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a layer to cover a part of the surface to control the optics (see Kusahara, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 10, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein the core layer comprises a polycarbonate resin (Ishido, [0020], “Resin 15 is polyester resin, polyether resin, acrylic resin, polyolefin resin, cyclic olefin resin, polycarbonate resin, ene / thiol resin, epoxy resin, polyamide resin, polyamide resin, polyimide resin, polyamide imide resin, polyurethane resin, polystyrene resin, polyarylate Resin, polysulfone resin, polyether sulfone resin, polyparaphenylene resin, polyarylene ether phosphine oxide resin, etc. can be exemplified”(emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 10, and Hara further discloses:
… wherein a total thickness of the antireflection layer is 120 to 550 nm (Hara, [0246], “it is preferred to adjust the thickness of the antireflective layer to from 50 to 150 nm, more preferably from 80 to 130 nm”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara with the layer thickness of Hara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of various layer thicknesses as disclosed by Hara and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of layer thicknesses to manipulate and control light.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 10, and Hara further discloses:
… wherein the design layer, the core layer, and the antireflection layer are arranged in this order (Hara, FIGS. 25-28, showing an embodiment with antireflection layer in addition to the core and design layers).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara with the antireflective layer of Hara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of antireflective layers as disclosed by Hara and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of antireflective layers to better control and manipulate the light.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 10, and Hara further discloses:
… wherein the design layer comprises a first design component layer including halftone dots or mesh, and a second design component layer that is wholly solid in appearance (Hara, FIGS. 25-28, [[0154], particles 1 and substrate 2).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara with the antireflective layer of Hara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of antireflective layers as disclosed by Hara and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of antireflective layers to better control and manipulate the light.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 10, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein the design layer consists of a binder and one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo- based compound and a perylene-based compound as a colorant (Ishido, [0025], “The dye 14 may be, for example, only a black dye, or two or more kinds such as a black dye and a green dye. Examples of black dyes include perylene dyes (perylene dyes), azo dyes, azine dyes, anthraquinone dyes, perinone dyes, and quinoline dyes” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein when the halftone dots are present, a distance between centers of adjacent halftone dots is 20 to 200 μm, and when the mesh is present, a distance between centers of adjacent lines of the mesh is 20 to 200 μm.
However, as noted in Claim 18, Hara, FIGS. 25-28, [0154], discloses particles 1 and substrate 2, and further discloses in [0146] discloses ranges preferred for their apparatus. The spacing of the halftone dots are a result-effective variable. In that, if the spacing is too low it would it would reflect too much and if the spacing is too high there would be insufficient reflection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to adjust the spacing as needed, since determining the optimum spacing to provide sufficient reflection is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishido (JP2019032351A), in view of Hara (US20120164413A1), in view of Kusahara (JP2018044991A), and in further view of Nagai (JP2003098470A).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses Claim 13, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein … the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.28 to 1.40 (Ishido, [0031], “The fine particles 13 preferably have a refractive index to near-infrared light of 1.3 to 2.5”) and a thickness of 120 to 250 nm (Ishido, FIG. 14, where 900 nm, using the λ / 4 from Nagai below, would lead to 225 nm).
The combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses the above limitation but does not explicitly disclose:
… the antireflection layer comprises a low refractive index layer on a surface side …
However, Nagai, in a similar field of endeavor (head-up display device), discloses:
…the antireflection layer comprises a low refractive index layer on a surface side (Nagai, P6, L5-11, “The low-reflection film of this embodiment can be applied to a multi-layer low-reflection film, including the case of the above-mentioned two layers. The structure of the multilayer low-reflection film having the antireflection property is that the wavelength to be antireflection is λ, and the high refractive index layer-A low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 2-λ / 4, a two-layer low-reflection film, and a medium-refractive-index layer-high-refractive-index layer-low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 4-λ / 2-λ / 4”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara with the low refractive index layer of Nagai. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of low refractive index layers as disclosed by Nagai and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a low refractive index to better control and analyze the device.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Nagai discloses Claim 14 and Ishido further discloses:
… the low refractive index layer, and the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.55 to 1.85 (Ishido, [0031], “The fine particles 13 preferably have a refractive index to near-infrared light of 1.3 to 2.5”) and a thickness of 20 to 300 nm (Ishido, FIG. 14, where 900 nm, using the λ / 4 from Nagai below, would lead to 225 nm).
Nagai further discloses:
…the antireflection layer comprises a low refractive index layer on a surface side (Nagai, P6, L5-11, “The low-reflection film of this embodiment can be applied to a multi-layer low-reflection film, including the case of the above-mentioned two layers. The structure of the multilayer low-reflection film having the antireflection property is that the wavelength to be antireflection is λ, and the high refractive index layer-A low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 2-λ / 4, a two-layer low-reflection film, and a medium-refractive-index layer-high-refractive-index layer-low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 4-λ / 2-λ / 4”)
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Nagai with the low refractive index layer of Nagai. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of low refractive index layers as disclosed by Nagai and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a low refractive index to better control and analyze the device.
Claims 22-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishido (JP2019032351A), in view of Hara (US20120164413A1), in further view of Kusahara (JP2018044991A), and in further view of Ikarashi (US 20200016801 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Ichido discloses,
An infrared sensor comprising:
a casing that has a window part (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], optical filter 10);
an infrared light emitting element (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], near infrared light emitting unit 2) and an infrared light receiving element disposed in the casing (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], near infrared light receiving unit 3); and
a protective cover provided for the window part and disposed in front of the infrared light emitting element and the infrared light receiving element (Ishido, FIG. 12, [0062], housing 4 and optical filter 10), wherein
the protective cover comprises a resin panel that comprises a core layer (Ishido, FIG. 1, [0072], “wavelength selective absorption layer 11);
the resin panel further comprises an antireflection layer on a surface on one side thereof (Ishido, FIGS. 10-11, [0057], “The dielectric multilayer films 17, 17a and 17b may have, for example, a reflection preventing function with respect to near infrared light and light of the above first near infrared wavelength band”), and is disposed so that the side provided with the antireflection layer faces the infrared light emitting element and infrared light receiving element (Ishido, FIGS. 10-12, showing that dielectric multilayer film 17a can be on the side facing near infrared light emitting unit 2 and near infrared light receiving unit 3); …
… the resin panel has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 905 nm of 85% or more (Ishido, FIG. 14, [0075], “the optical filter 10 of the present example has a small variation in the straight-ahead transmittance for light in the near infrared region, particularly at a wavelength of 870 to 1000 nm, and maintains a high level of 85% or more for light in any wavelength region”) and …
Ishido discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the [design layer] comprises a first design component layer including halftone dots or mesh, and a second design component layer that is wholly solid in appearance …
… when the halftone dots are present, each dot of the halftone dots has a diameter of 5 μm to 100 μm and when the mesh is present the mesh has a line width of 20 μm to 100 Lum; and …
… a water contact angle of the surface of the antireflection layer is 100 degrees or more; and …
However, Hara, in a similar field of endeavor (inorganic particle composite bodies), discloses:
… the [design layer] comprises a first design component layer including halftone dots or mesh, and a second design component layer that is wholly solid in appearance (Hara, FIGS. 25-28, [[0154], particles 1 and substrate 2) …
… a water contact angle of the surface of the antireflection layer is 100 degrees or more (Hara, [0228], “having a contact angle with water greater than 60 degree”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishido with the half dots and water contact angle of Hara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of half dots and various water contact angles as disclosed by Hara and how to use them to modify Ishido. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of antireflective layers to better control and manipulate the light and the use of water contact angles to manipulate and control light.
The combination of Ishido and Hara discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a design layer is provided on an entire surface of the core layer; …
… a visible light transmittance of 20% or less at an area where the design layer is provided on the core layer.
However, Kusahara, in a similar field of endeavor (optical unit including an infrared transmitting device and an infrared transmitting device), discloses:
… a design layer is provided on an entire surface of the core layer (Kusahara, FIGS. 4 – 5, [0034], infrared non-transmitting member 3, and [0035], “The infrared non-transmissive member 3 is provided so as to cover a part of the first surface 13 of the translucent base material 1”); …
… a visible light transmittance of 20% or less at an area where the design layer is provided on the core layer (Kusahara, FIGS. 4 -5, [0037], “the infrared non-transmissive member 3 has a transmittance of 10% or less (more preferably 5% or less, more preferably 1% or less)”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido and Hara with the design layer of Kusahara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of design layers as disclosed by Kusahara and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido and Hara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a layer to cover a part of the surface to control the optics (see Kusahara, [0035]).
The combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… when the halftone dots are present, each dot of the halftone dots has a diameter of 5 μm to 100 μm and when the mesh is present the mesh has a line width of 20 μm to 100 μm; and …
However, Ikarashi, in a similar field of endeavor (LABEL FOR IN-MOLD MOLDING AND LABELED RESIN MOLDED ARTICLE), discloses:
… when the halftone dots are present, each dot of the halftone dots has a diameter of 5 μm to 100 μm and when the mesh is present the mesh has a line width of 20 μm to 100 μmn (Ikarashi, FIG. 12, [0092], “ink-receiving layer (B) 12 include the form of halftone dots, the form of a mesh, and the form of lines at equal intervals,” and [0066], “12 is not particularly limited but is preferably 0.01 to 10 μm, more preferably 0.03 to 5 μm, further preferably 0.05 to 3 μm, and particularly preferably 0.1 to 1 μm”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara with the half dots of Ikarashi. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of half dots as disclosed by Ikarashi and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, and Kusahara. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of half dots and antireflective layers to better control and manipulate the light and the use of water contact angles to manipulate and control light.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses Claim 22, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein the core layer comprises a polycarbonate resin (Ishido, [0020], “Resin 15 is polyester resin, polyether resin, acrylic resin, polyolefin resin, cyclic olefin resin, polycarbonate resin, ene / thiol resin, epoxy resin, polyamide resin, polyamide resin, polyimide resin, polyamide imide resin, polyurethane resin, polystyrene resin, polyarylate Resin, polysulfone resin, polyether sulfone resin, polyparaphenylene resin, polyarylene ether phosphine oxide resin, etc. can be exemplified”(emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses Claim 22, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein the design layer comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo-based compound and a perylene-based compound (Ishido, [0025], “The dye 14 may be, for example, only a black dye, or two or more kinds such as a black dye and a green dye. Examples of black dyes include perylene dyes (perylene dyes), azo dyes, azine dyes, anthraquinone dyes, perinone dyes, and quinoline dyes” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses Claim 22, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein the design layer consists of a binder (Ishido, [0032], “in addition to adjusting the type and amount of the dye 14 contained in the resin 15, for example, by adjusting the average particle diameter of the fine particles 13 and the difference in refractive index between the fine particles 13 and the resin 15 serving as a binder”) and one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an azomethineazo-based compound and a perylene-based compound as a colorant (Ishido, [0025], “The dye 14 may be, for example, only a black dye, or two or more kinds such as a black dye and a green dye. Examples of black dyes include perylene dyes (perylene dyes), azo dyes, azine dyes, anthraquinone dyes, perinone dyes, and quinoline dyes” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses Claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein when the halftone dots are present, a distance between centers of adjacent halftone dots is 20 to 200 μm, and when the mesh is present, a distance between centers of adjacent lines of the mesh is 20 to 200 μm.
However, as noted in Claim 22, Hara, FIGS. 25-28, [0154], discloses particles 1 and substrate 2, and further discloses in [0146] discloses ranges preferred for their apparatus. The spacing of the halftone dots are a result-effective variable. In that, if the spacing is too low it would it would reflect too much and if the spacing is too high there would be insufficient reflection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to adjust the spacing as needed, since determining the optimum spacing to provide sufficient reflection is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Additionally, Ikarashi discloses in [0066] and [0092] more materials in line with the claimed materials that have a thickness in μm which would inherently have distances between centers in the claimed range or, in an example where they are not within range, be a results effect variable involving only routine skill in the art (see above).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishido (JP2019032351A), in view of Hara (US20120164413A1), in further view of Kusahara (JP2018044991A), in further view of Ikarashi (US 20200016801 A1), and in further view of Nagai (JP2003098470A).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses Claim 22, and Ishido further discloses:
… wherein a total thickness of the antireflection layer is 120 to 550 nm (Ishido, [0031], “The fine particles 13 preferably have a refractive index to near-infrared light of 1.3 to 2.5”);
… a thickness of 120 to 250 nm (Ishido, FIG. 14, where 900 nm, using the λ / 4 from Nagai below, would lead to 225 nm); and
… the high refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.55 to 1.85 (Ishido, [0031], “The fine particles 13 preferably have a refractive index to near-infrared light of 1.3 to 2.5”) and a thickness of 20 to 300 nm (Ishido, FIG. 14, where 900 nm, using the λ / 4 from Nagai below, would lead to 225 nm).
The combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the antireflection layer comprises a low refractive index layer on a surface side and …
… the antireflection layer further comprises a high refractive index layer disposed on the core layer side relative to the low refractive index layer, and …
However, Nagai, in a similar field of endeavor (head-up display device), discloses:
… the antireflection layer comprises a low refractive index layer on a surface side (Nagai, P6, L5-11, “The low-reflection film of this embodiment can be applied to a multi-layer low-reflection film, including the case of the above-mentioned two layers. The structure of the multilayer low-reflection film having the antireflection property is that the wavelength to be antireflection is λ, and the high refractive index layer-A low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 2-λ / 4, a two-layer low-reflection film, and a medium-refractive-index layer-high-refractive-index layer-low-refractive-index layer having an optical thickness of λ / 4-λ / 2-λ / 4”), and the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.28 to 1.40 (Ishido, [0031], “The fine particles 13 preferably have a refractive index to near-infrared light of 1.3 to 2.5”) and …
… the antireflection layer further comprises a high refractive index layer disposed on the core layer side relative to the low refractive index layer, and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi with the low refractive index layer of Nagai. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of low refractive index layers as disclosed by Nagai and how to use them to modify the combination of Ishido, Hara, Kusahara, and Ikarashi. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a low refractive index to better control and analyze the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0079. Examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST (8-4 CST).
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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s Supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3995. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights