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 .
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, 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-070395 Goto et al in view of JP 2006-337664 Sawanobori.
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches an antiglare film (antireflection, paragraph 0096) laminate (paragraph 0089), comprising:
a polymer substrate (paragraph 0091); and
an antiglare layer (antireflection, paragraph 0096) comprising a binder resin (component C, paragraph 0053, where a material need not be called a binder in order to function as one), a silicon-based additive (paragraph 0075, component K), a fluorine-based additive (paragraph 0039, component B), and organic fine particles (monomers in component B, paragraph 0039), and inorganic fine particles dispersed on the binder resin (component A, paragraph 0013, zinc oxide),
wherein the number of pressed portions (zero) formed on an outer surface of the antiglare layer is 0 pieces/m2 (where because of Goto’s silence regarding a pressed portion, the examiner is taking the position that one does not exist),
each pressed portion has a diameter of 200 µm to 600 µm and a thickness of 80% or less of an average thickness of the antiglare layer (where the claim is met by the absence of a pressed portion),
the antiglare layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 50 microns (paragraph 0093),
the antiglare layer comprises 27.7 parts by weight of the fluorine-based additive (the organic fine particle) based on 100 parts by weight of the binder resin (paragraph 0099, where 5 parts of the fluorine additive with respect to 18 parts of the binder (C) is 27.7%), and 4.4 parts by weight of the silicon-based additive based on 100 parts by weight of the binder resin (paragraph 0108, where 0.8 parts of the silicon additive with respect to 18 parts of the binder (C) is 4.4%), and
wherein the polymer substrate has a thickness of 0.1 microns to 10 mm (paragraph 0090).
“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 0.1 to 50 microns reads on the claimed range of 1 to 10 microns, and the taught range of 0.1 microns to 10 mm reads on the claimed range of 10 to 150 microns.
Goto does not explicitly teach the fluorine, silicon and carbon ratios or the amount of organic fine particles. Goto teaches the amount of inorganic fine particles but does not teach the claimed ratio (20%, paragraph 0098, of 381, paragraph 0108, = 76.2 parts of inorganic fine particles. 76.2/18 parts of the binder resin = 423 parts). Goto does, however, teach that the ratio may be modified (paragraph 0038).
Goto further teaches that each of the components in the antiglare layer are variable based on the desired final product (paragraph 0038 for component A, paragraph 0052 for component B, paragraph 0059 for component D, paragraph 0061 for components E, F and G, paragraph 0068 for components H I and J, paragraph 0077 for component K, and paragraph 0080 for components L, M and N).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific element and particle ratios are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and structural characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method, the precise ratios of the elements and particles 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 ratios 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 ratios of the fluorine and silicon with respect to carbon in the antiglare layer, and the ratios of the organic and inorganic fine particles to obtain the desired physical 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.
Goto does not explicitly teach the fluorine/carbon ratio in the pressed portion. However, Goto meets the claim by reading on the lack of a pressed portion (because of Goto’s silence regarding a pressed portion, the examiner is taking the position that one does not exist).
Goto does not teach the surface roughness. Sawanobori teaches an antireflection film (paragraph 0001) including zinc oxide particles (paragraph 0097) wherein the arithmetic average roughness (Ra) measured on a surface of the antiglare layer is 20-250 nm (paragraph 0128). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the roughness of Sawanobori in the product of Goto because this roughness reduces the presence of haze (paragraph 0128).
“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 20-250 nm reads on the claimed range of 100 nm or less.
Regarding claim 3, Goto teaches that the polymer substrate has a thickness of 0.1 microns to 10 mm (paragraph 0090), and that the thickness of the antiglare layer is 0.1 to 50 microns (paragraph 0093).
Therefore, the ratio of the thickness of the antiglare layer to the thickness of the polymer substrate is 0.00001 to 500. “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 0.00001 to 500 reads on the claimed range of 0.008 to 0.8.
Regarding claim 4, Goto teaches that the binder resin (C) included in the antiglare layer comprises a homopolymer formed from a (meth)acrylate monomer (paragraph 0053, where the binder need not be called a binder in order to function as one).
Regarding claim 8, Goto teaches that the binder resin contained in the antiglare layer comprises a photocurable resin (paragraph 0053), and the photopolymerizable compound includes a (meth)acrylate monomer or oligomer (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 11, Goto teaches that the silicon-based additive comprises polyether-modified polysiloxane copolymer (component K, paragraph 0075, where both glycol groups makes a copolymer), and
the fluorine-based additive comprises a fluorine-based copolymer (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 14, Goto teaches that the inorganic fine particles included in the antiglare layer have a cross-sectional diameter of 50 nm or less (paragraph 0033). Goto does not teach the size of the organic fine particles but does teach a variety of options (paragraphs 0041-0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the molecule, each with a different size, based on the desired final product properties and characteristics.
“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 50 nm or less reads on the claimed range of 1 to 500nm.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Goto teaches the antiglare film with a silicon-based additive but does not teach use as a polarizing plate in a display device. Sawanobori teaches an antireflection film (paragraph 0001) wherein antiglare film is used in polarizing plate in a display device (paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the use of the antiglare film as a polarizing plate in an image display device because this increases the potential applications for the product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed element ratios distinguishes a pressed portion region. However, the claim is met by a lack of a pressed portion. Therefore, the claimed ratios apply to the entire surface.
Applicant argues that the claim requires two distinct surface portions. However, the claim does not require the presence of a pressed portion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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