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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/12/2026. Claims 32-34 are new, and claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21-34 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 29 is 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.
Claim 29 recites “the surface features are arranged in a hexagonal lattice” and is further limited by dependence on Claim 1 via “randomly distributed surface features”. In the original disclosure, Applicant discloses the design method includes an algorithm including a step of providing hexagonality (see [0138],[0139],[0148]) and “a random distribution with a relatively high degree of mean hexagonality, often exceeding 90%”. A “hexagonal lattice” as claimed, would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a mutually exclusive embodiment from a random distribution, as claimed. An artisan would understand the distribution could be both random and hexagonal in distribution or random with hexagonality, but an artisan would understand a hexagonal lattice to be distinct and separate from a random distribution. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined and pre-empt further examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,161,058 to Matsui (hereinafter Matsui).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a substrate for a display article (Figs. 4-6), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6); and a textured region (minute patterns 43, 53, 60, Figs. 4-6) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (surface of rises 42, 52, 60c, Figs. 4-6) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (bottom of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (surfaces of rise 41, 51, 60b, Figs. 4-6) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base- plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; and specifically placed but randomly distributed surface features (“the minute patterns of protrudent parts are irregularly formed on the base plate in the case of the first embodiment, the irregular array of protrudent parts or rises may be replaced with an irregular array of recesses. It is also possible either to have these rises and recesses formed in a commingled state or to have them formed in different sizes in a commingled state”; col. 4, ll. 11-22 & Claim 8) providing at least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Figs. 4-6), wherein, the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 4-6), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (Figs. 4-6), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 19, Matsui discloses a substrate for a display article (Figs. 4-6), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6); and a textured region (minute patterns 43, 53, 60, Figs. 4-6) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (surface of rises 42, 52, 60c, Figs. 4-6) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (bottom of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (top of base plate 1, Figs. 4-6) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; one or more surfaces (surfaces of rise 41, 51, 60b, Figs. 4-6) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation; and specifically placed but randomly distributed surface features (“the minute patterns of protrudent parts are irregularly formed on the base plate in the case of the first embodiment, the irregular array of protrudent parts or rises may be replaced with an irregular array of recesses. It is also possible either to have these rises and recesses formed in a commingled state or to have them formed in different sizes in a commingled state”; col. 4, ll. 16-22 & Claim 8) providing at least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Figs. 4-6), wherein, the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 4-6), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (Figs. 4-6), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 4-6).
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.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 19, 22-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2010/0177398 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter Watanabe; cited by Applicant) in view of US Pat. No. 8,559,110 to Tanikawa (hereinafter Tanikawa).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a substrate for a display article (display structure shown in Fig. 1 with optical film 1 embodied specifically as Example 20, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (the lowest elevations of topography of Fig. 44B, shown alternatively as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B); and a textured region (Fig. 44B) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (higher surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (lower plane of Fig. 44B) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (lower surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; specifically placed but randomly distributed (“size of bottoms of the structures changes at random within the range of the minimum distance Rm to the maximum distance RM”; Abstract & [0546]) surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation, each surface feature comprising a perimeter that is parallel to the base-plane and that has a longest dimension (Fig. 44B).
Watanabe discloses “to achieve the desired diffuse reflection angle characteristics, the etch depth of the die, the overall etching time after the resist stripping, and the like are preferably adjusted” ([0333]) and “forming the base pattern (irregular pattern of the substrate 11) is not limited to the above-described method and may be any method as long as the method has the protrusion radius distribution selectivity, random arrangement, height controllability, protrusion shape (slope) controllability, and the like” ([0331]).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar, and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane, the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
Tanikawa discloses the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (steps 3a, Fig. 1), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls (step portions 3b, Fig. 1) extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane (bottom surface of substrate 2, Fig. 1), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Fig. 1 & 7).
The figure below is meant for illustration-purposes only and is provided on account of a substantive misunderstanding by Applicant as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the modification of Watanabe in view of Tanikawa. The scale of structures in Tanikawa are direct comparisons to the roughness provided on top of the undulating, hemi-spherical or conical surfaces in Watanabe. There is no proposal to replace the larger convex structures with the shape of structures disclosed by Tanikawa. By providing a composite of Tanikawa and Watanabe, motivated to accurately control reflectance, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure would necessarily be equivalent to the claimed invention. With the superposition of the larger convex structures and surface roughness, Watanabe alone discloses lower surfaces, intermediate surfaces, and higher surfaces as claimed. In view of Tanikawa, the superposition of the super-structure and sub-structures would be obvious to have the claimed sidewalls.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide planar surfaces and orthogonal sidewalls as taught by Tanikawa with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to accurately control the reflectance of incident light (col. 2, ll. 4-11). Note: The planar surfaces and sidewalls of the Tanikawa structures have heights >2µm and widths >150nm.
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
900
948
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the lower mean elevation differs from the higher mean elevation by a distance within a range of 50 nm to 700 nm (Z Range of Fig. 44B and roughness of Table 5; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the longest dimensions of the surface features are within a range of 0.5 µm to 120 µm (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the surface features are not arranged in a pattern (Fig. 44B & Claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses the textured region further comprises: a surrounding portion (portion around large convexities, Fig. 44B) providing either (i) the one or more higher surfaces (highest elevation of large convex structures are definitionally higher in elevation than surrounding recessed portions, Fig. 44B)or (ii) the one or more lower surfaces (portion surrounding highest elevation of large convex structures are definitionally lower in elevation, Fig. 44B); wherein, the surface features provide the other of the (i) the one or more higher surfaces and (ii) the one or more lower surfaces, whichever the surrounding portion is not providing.
Note: The exact same teachings of Watanabe anticipate each claimed alternative based on matching different structures to respective claim terms, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the surface features are disposed within the surrounding portion, and provide the one or more lower surfaces; and the surrounding portion provides the one or more higher surfaces (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses the surface features project from the surrounding portion, and provide the one or more higher surfaces of the substrate residing at the higher mean elevation; and the surrounding portion provides the one or more lower surfaces of the substrate residing at the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses a fill-fraction of the surface features is within a range of 40% to 60% (Fig. 44B).
The Specifications provide a special definition for “fill-fraction” in [0093]: “the percentage of the area of the cross-section that the surface features 38 collectively occupy”. Additional context includes “[w]hen viewing a cross-section of the substrate 12 parallel with the base-plane 30 that extends through the textured region 20 and having perimeter bounded by the textured region 20, the surface features 38 each occupy a percentage of the area of the cross-section”. For surface features having sidewalls perpendicular to the base-plane, as disclosed by Applicant in at least Fig. 3, there is a consistent cross-section and thus a singular fill-fraction within a region. For a conical convexity, such as Watanabe, the sidewalls are not parallel to the base-plane and the fill-fraction varies by Applicant’s definition. For a perfect, mathematical cone in which the apex is 0-dimensional, the fill-fraction under Applicant’s definition is 0%. For conical bases with complete overlap and no adjoining gaps, the fill-fraction under Applicant’s definition is 100%. In Watanabe’s topography shown in Fig. 44B, the fill-fraction varies in regions from nearly 0% and nearly 100% based on the elevation of the sampling and thus anticipates the claimed range of 40% to 60% as the fill-fraction varies continuously and smoothly for the shown geometries.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses the surface features comprise larger surface features and smaller surface features, the longest dimension of the larger surface features are all about the same and are within a range of 30 µm to 120 µm (large convex structures, Fig. 44B), the longest dimension of the smaller surface features are all about the same, are smaller than the longest dimension of the larger surface features, and are within a range of 0.5 µm to 30 µm (fine structures, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), and the smaller surface features are more numerous than the larger surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses each of the larger surface features is separated from each other by a minimum center- to-center distance that (i) is larger than the longest dimension of the larger surface features (gaps between convexities, Fig. 44B) and (ii) within a range of 30 µm to 125 µm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]); and each of the smaller surface features is separated by a minimum center-to-center distance that (i) is larger than the longest dimension of the smaller surface features (gaps between fine structures, Fig. 44B) and (ii) within a range of 1 µm to 30 µm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the smaller surface features provide a portion of both (i) the one or more higher surfaces (Fig. 44B) and (ii) the one or more lower surfaces (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses the perimeters of the larger surface features do not overlap with the perimeters of the smaller surface features (fine structure perimeters at the top of convex structures in Fig. 44B do not overlap with the lowest perimeters of the convex structures).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the perimeters of the larger surface features overlap with the perimeters of the smaller surface features (an arbitrary cross-section of any larger convexity of Fig. 44B will include cross-sectional perimeters of fine structure elements).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses a fill-fraction of the larger surface features is 20% to 70% (Fig. 44B); and a fill-fraction of the smaller surface features is within a range of 20% to 70% (Fig. 44B). See discussion of fill-fraction as in Claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe discloses one or more sections comprising secondary surface features imparting a surface roughness (Ra) within a range of 5 nm to 100 nm (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe discloses the perimeter of each of the surface features is circular, and the longest dimension is the diameter (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe discloses a substrate for a display article (display structure shown in Fig. 1 with optical film 1 embodied specifically as Example 20, Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), the substrate comprising: a primary surface (the lowest elevations of topography of Fig. 44B, shown alternatively as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B); and a textured region (Fig. 44B) defined on the primary surface, the textured region comprising: one or more higher surfaces (higher surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a higher mean elevation parallel to a base-plane (lower plane of Fig. 44B) disposed below the textured region extending through the substrate; one or more lower surfaces (lower surfaces of Fig. 44B) residing at a lower mean elevation parallel to the base-plane, wherein the lower mean elevation is less than the higher mean elevation; one or more surfaces (slopes between high and low surfaces, Fig. 44B) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B); and specifically placed but randomly distributed (“size of bottoms of the structures changes at random within the range of the minimum distance Rm to the maximum distance RM”; Abstract & [0546]) surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation.
Watanabe discloses “to achieve the desired diffuse reflection angle characteristics, the etch depth of the die, the overall etching time after the resist stripping, and the like are preferably adjusted” ([0333]) and “forming the base pattern (irregular pattern of the substrate 11) is not limited to the above-described method and may be any method as long as the method has the protrusion radius distribution selectivity, random arrangement, height controllability, protrusion shape (slope) controllability, and the like” ([0331]).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar, and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane, the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees.
Tanikawa discloses the one or more higher surfaces and the one or more lower surfaces are planar (Figs. 1 & 7), and wherein, the textured region further comprises sidewalls extending from the one or more lower surfaces away from the base-plane Figs. 1 & 7), the sidewalls forming an angle relative to the one or more lower surfaces that is within a range of from 80 degrees to 90 degrees (Figs. 1 & 7).
The figure below is meant for illustration-purposes only and is provided on account of a substantive misunderstanding by Applicant as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the modification of Watanabe in view of Tanikawa. The scale of structures in Tanikawa are direct comparisons to the roughness provided on top of the undulating, hemi-spherical or conical surfaces in Watanabe. There is no proposal to replace the larger convex structures with the shape of structures disclosed by Tanikawa. By providing a composite of Tanikawa and Watanabe, motivated to accurately control reflectance, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure would necessarily be equivalent to the claimed invention. With the superposition of the larger convex structures and surface roughness, Watanabe alone discloses lower surfaces, intermediate surfaces, and higher surfaces as claimed. In view of Tanikawa, the superposition of the super-structure and sub-structures would be obvious to have the claimed sidewalls.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide planar surfaces and orthogonal sidewalls as taught by Tanikawa with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to accurately control the reflectance of incident light (col. 2, ll. 4-11). Note: The planar surfaces and sidewalls of the Tanikawa structures have heights >2µm and widths >150nm.
PNG
media_image3.png
900
948
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe discloses wherein, each surface feature comprises a perimeter and has a longest dimension parallel to the base-plane (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), wherein, the surface features comprise larger surface features and smaller surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]), and wherein, the longest dimensions of the smaller surface features are smaller than the longest dimensions of the larger surface features (Fig. 44B; [0564]-[0570]).
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe discloses one or more surfaces (slopes between high and low surfaces, Fig. 44B) of the substrate residing at one or more intermediate mean elevations parallel to the base-plane, wherein the one or more intermediate mean elevations are less than the higher mean elevation but greater than the lower mean elevation (Fig. 44B); and surface features (convex structures protruding from lowest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as structures 11a in Fig. 34B, or gaps between convex structures recessed from highest planes in Fig. 44B, shown as gaps 11d in Fig. 34B) providing at a least a portion of either the one or more higher surfaces residing at the higher mean elevation or the one or more lower surfaces residing at the lower mean elevation.
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and does not explicitly disclose only one intermediate mean elevation.
Tanikawa discloses only one intermediate mean elevation (Fig. 1 & 7) in combination, as proposed, with Watanabe roughness.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide intermediate elevations with planar surfaces and orthogonal sidewalls as taught by Tanikawa with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to accurately control the reflectance of incident light (col. 2, ll. 4-11).
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and thus to intermediate mean elevations (Fig. 44B).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe discloses the longest dimension of the surface features is within a range of from 0.5micron to 30 micron (~20micron, Fig. 44B), the longest dimension of the larger surface features are all about the same (Fig. 44B), and the longest dimension of the smaller surfaces are all about the same (Fig. 44B). It is noted that the uniformity shown in Fig. 44B would read on “about the same” to a person having ordinary skill in the art as the structures have uniform optical performance.
Regarding claim 31, Watanabe discloses continuous intermediate elevations and does not explicitly disclose the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at either the surface features or the surrounding portion but not both the surface features and the surrounding portion.
Tanikawa discloses the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at either the surface features or the surrounding portion but not both the surface features and the surrounding portion (Fig. 1 & 7) in combination, as proposed, with Watanabe roughness.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide texture with planar surfaces and orthogonal sidewalls as taught by Tanikawa with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to accurately control the reflectance of incident light (col. 2, ll. 4-11).
Regarding claim 32, Watanabe discloses there are two intermediate mean elevations (Fig. 44B). This claim does not distinguish the structure over Watanabe because Watanabe demonstrates a smoothly sloped super-structure with a sub-structure superimposed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,581,731 to Bookbinder et al. (hereinafter Bookbinder; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the substrate comprises a glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate.
Bookbinder discloses the substrate comprises a glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate (Table 2; col. 25).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a glass substrate as taught by Bookbinder with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to use a substrate exhibiting flexible manufacturing techniques and ubiquity in optical manufacturing processes (col. 22, ln. 63-col. 23, ln. 14).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,992,786 to Kohli, et al. (hereinafter Kohli).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose particular values of transmission haze and distinctness of image.
Kohli discloses the textured region exhibits a transmission haze within a range of from 10% to 30% and the textured region exhibits a distinctiveness-of-image within a range of from 10% to 40% (“a glass panel having at least one roughened surface including a haze of less than about 25%; a distinctness-of-image (DOI 20.degree.) of about 25 to about 90; and a surface roughness (Ra) of about 100 to about 300 nm, which properties provide an anti-glare surface”; col. 10, ll. 29-34).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed transmission haze and distinctness-of-image values as taught by Kohli with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to prevent display glare and/or sparkle (Abstract).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tanikawa as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,070,849 to Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori).
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at both the surface features and the surrounding portion, and the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surface features is less than the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surrounding portion.
Mori discloses the textured region further comprises secondary surface features that impart a surface roughness (Ra) at both the surface features and the surrounding portion, and the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surface features is less than the surface roughness (Ra) imparted by the second surface features at the surrounding portion (“an average surface roughness Ra of the substrate sheet in the central area a may be set at 5 nm that is as small as possible, and a surface roughness Ra of the substrate sheet in the marginal area CB may be set on the order of 110 to 140 nm”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary surface roughness in central and surrounding regions as taught by Mori with the system as disclosed by Watanabe. The motivation would have been to ensure anti-reflectivity functionality while allowing release and transfer of AR sheets (col. 26, ln. 16-42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21, 33, and 34 are allowed.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance was presented in the previous Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Matsui. In particular, Applicant contends “Matsui is not enabling prior art” and further states “the manufacturing method is the only way to precisely determine whether Matsui placed the public in possession of ‘specifically placed but randomly distributed surface features’ since the structural outcome of ‘irregular’ formation may appear similar to “specifically placed by randomly distributed’ features when view in the final product”. Examiner agrees, in part, and disagrees, in part, with the above contention. The claim is drawn to the final product and the manufacturing method captured implicitly with the claimed “specifically placed by randomly distributed” language provides patentable weight to the apparatus insomuch as the language structurally distinguishes the claimed invention over prior art. Examiner maintains that the language results only in random distribution of the features in the final product and the “specifically placed” language does not structurally distinguish the captured species over the Matsui structure. There is no question that Applicant provides disclosure for a method of algorithmically designing the placement of features on a surface and a manufacturing method involving a corresponding etching mask. In col. 4, ll. 1-7 of Matsui, the method of manufacturing is disclosed to include vapor deposition processes and that is sufficiently enabling for a person having ordinary skill in this art. Every patent is presumed valid (35 U.S.C. 282 ), and that presumption includes the presumption of operability (Metropolitan Eng. Co. v. Coe, 78 F.2d 199, 25 USPQ 216 (D.C. Cir. 1935). MPEP 716.07. As Matsui specifically places the protrusions on the surface via deposition for effectuating operability and the protrusions are irregularly spaced, the claimed invention is anticipated with an enabling patent disclosure.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Watanabe teaches away from the modification proposed in the previous and repeated rejection above. Specifically, Applicant points to Watanabe as discouraging “the very features recited by claim 1” and warns against “creating flat regions” due to a loss of anti-glare property. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the comments argued to be disparaging of the modification are not germane to the proposed modification but to a hypothetical specie imagined by Watanabe. The flat regions disparaged in Watanabe are best understood in comparing the differences between preferred embodiments Fig. 39A-B and the disparaged embodiment in Fig. 39C. The flatness disparaged in the Fig. 39C would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to have at least two distinguishing features that make it irrelevant to the claimed invention and proposed modification: (1) the flatness scale and (2) the orientation of flatness as substantially in-line with the incident light. As the disparaging comments relate to glare, the degree to which a structure is flat relative to the dimensions of the structure are a critical inquiry into the optical effect (i.e. reflections, glare, etc.). This is the main mode of operation for Applicant’s invention and thus should be self-evident. Further, the Watanabe and Tanikawa references repeatedly disclose the degree to which continuous boundaries of refractive materials provide glare and that modifying interfaces with smaller structures, interrupting continuity, reduces reflectivity and improves optical performance. Fig. 39C is not relied upon in the evidence of the claims’ obviousness, but rather the teachings of super- and sub-structures that combine to reduce glare and reflectivity. The scale of unevenness and flatness in the Watanabe embodiment relied upon in the rejections is shown in Figs. 34A and 44B. The scale of unevenness and flatness in the Tanikawa embodiment relied upon in the rejections is shown in Fig. 7,with pillars of 150nm width and flat incident surfaces less than 150nm width and pillar heights ~2micron. It is acknowledged that Watanabe disparages and teaches away from modifications proposing embodiments with higher degrees of flatness but the prior art itself evidences that there is no flatness in the proposed modification disparaged in Watanabe.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Watanabe controls slope and does not introduce discontinuities and steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the scale of the discontinuities and steps is critical in relating the inventions of Tanikawa and Watanabe. The steps and discontinuities in both are sub-wavelength, though the step contours in Watanabe are curved and the step contours in Tanikawa are straight. At the scale of the structures disclosed in Watanabe Fig. 44B and Tanikawa Figs. 1 & 7, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the slopes of the interfaces are respectively controlled to effectuate the same reduction in optical reflectivity.
On pages 14-15, Applicant argues that the modification in the rejection above changes the principle of operation of Watanabe. Specifically, Applicant argues that Watanabe “strives for a mathematically smooth surface” in providing the continuous wavy surface. Examiner has stated herein that Tanikawa is providing a mathematically smooth surface based on the scale of the structures, i.e. steps. Watanabe provides scale in Fig. 44B, though Tanikawa does not provide a structure to scale in Fig. 7. The below figure shows the approximate relative scale of the structures of Watanabe and Tanikawa in order to illuminate that the aspect ratios of the Tanikawa structure do not provide flatness on a scale discussed in Watanabe.
On pages 15-16, Applicant argues Tanaka does not support the motivation to modify Watanabe. The arguments do not address the scale of the structures discussed in Watanabe and Tanikawa and therefore do not provide a persuasive argument that the teachings of Tanikawa are incompatible with Watanabe. Simply put, the waviness and curves disclosed in Watanabe are orders of magnitude different than the structures in Matsui.
On page 16, Applicant argues that Watanabe does not disclose the limitations of Claim 2. Examiner disagrees as Fig. 44B depicts, with proportionality, the sub-structures deviating from the super-structures between 50nm and 700nm. The entire wavy, undulating superstructure is on the order of 1.5µm with the scaled sub-structures being approximately 1/10 the height of the superstructure.
On page 17, Applicant argues Watanabe’s structures are protrusions nor recesses. Examiner notes that Claim 6 does not require “recesses” but rather limits the claim via surrounding portions and lower surfaces and would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to capture both recesses and the surfaces disclosed by Watanabe.
On page 18 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “”the Office cannot rely on Watanabe’s conical geometry to meet the fill-fraction limitation while simultaneously relying on Tanikawa to replace that geometry with planar surfaces and steep sidewalls”. Applicant mischaracterizes the rejection as the conical geometry is not “replaced” with planar surfaces and steep sidewalls from Tanikawa. The rejection does not state so and the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) does not require such a bodily incorporation of the embodiments of prior art. The discussion of scale above is sufficient to rebut this argument as the combination of the multi-scale structures in Watanabe and reduced-scale structure of Tanikawa with vertical sidewalls obviates the claimed invention and the rejection relies on the disclosure’s definition of fill-fraction in the rejection above.
On page 19 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against the Claim 9 rejection though the crux of this argument is not understood. The claim recites dimensions of small and large features which are taught in the Fig. 44B to-scale figure. Applicant’s note of the roughness is not clearly tied to an error in the rejection as the claim does not recite “a distinct population of surface features where ‘the longest dimensions of the smaller surface features are all about the same”. The Watanabe Fig. 44B shows features are “about the same”. This appears related to the arguments against the Claim 10-14 rejections in that it appears Applicant does not consider the smaller surface roughness patterns a “smaller surface feature” and is not looking to the cited Fig. 44B as evidence of the dimensionality. Examiner maintains that Fig. 44B teaches the claimed invention under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, in light of the roughness shown by Watanabe and the specific sub-structures shown by Tanikawa. The scale of the structures relied upon would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the substantially vertical sub-structures claimed and shown in Tanikawa with the super-structures shown in Watanabe.
On Page 24 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the roughness taught by Watanabe is five times larger than the upper limit of the claimed range. The Watanabe data provided by Applicant does not correlate to the structure relied upon in the rejection. The surface roughness of the larger, wavy super structure has an arithmetic mean roughness of 0.503µm, but the fine structure is far less and provided in the Table below [0564] at 84nm, for example.
On pages 26-27, Applicant substantially repeated arguments against the Watanabe surface roughness that are already addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights