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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have 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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 5-6, and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuta JP 2019215448A the corresponding US application US20210255364 is relied upon as a translation in view JP 2007-308584.
Regarding claim 1, Yabuta teaches a display device comprising: a display panel [0057]; and a cover member(fig 1b 1a- antiglare film-attached substrate) arranged on the display panel, wherein the cover member includes: a glass plate (substrate 10)having a first surface and a second surface; and an optical layer (binder 22)that is layered on the second surface of the glass plate. Yabuta also teaches the optical layer contains at least a matrix (22) and particles (21).
Yabuta does not explicitly teach an adhesive layer that is layered on the first surface of the glass plate and fixes the glass plate to the display panel. However given Yabuta discloses a display and the anti-glare film attached substrate is between the screen and the antiglare film [0057] than an adhesion layer would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for fixing the antiglare film attached substrate.
Yabuta does not explicitly teach the second surface of the glass plate is covered by at least the matrix of the optical layer. However Yabuta does disclose the coverage of the matrix as a function of glossiness [0034]. Therefore Yabuta recognizes this tradeoff for sharpness vs antiglare and while Yabuta does only teach a limit of 90% coverage [0033] this is not considered a teaching away as one of ordinary skill in the art can desire even more antiglare than the embodiments presented in Yabuta. JP 2007-308584 teaches a similar antiglare film that covers the entire second surface of the corresponding glass plate (see fig. 1) with a matrix (acrylic resin 3) covering the entire surface. This would enhance the antiglare effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the second surface of the glass plate is covered by at least the matrix of the optical layer to maximize the antiglare effect.
Regarding 2, Yabuta teaches the optical layer contains at least a matrix and particles (particles 21), and the particles form protrusions and depressions on a surface of the optical layer on a side opposite to the second surface (see fig. 1A/1B).
Regarding claim 3, Yabuta teaches the optical layer includes a first region(see fig 1A shows clustered particles) in which the particles are piled up in a thickness direction of the layer, and a valley-shaped second region (region 22 - binder only) that surrounds the first region or is surrounded by the first region.
Regarding claim 4, Yabuta teaches all the limitations of claim 4 except wherein the first region is a plateau-shaped region. Fuji teaches an antiglare film wherein the first region is a plateau-shaped region (plateaued peaks of fig. 1) enabling antiglare functionality at low cost and improved transparency (page 3 last 2 paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yabuta in view of Fuji to enable low cost and higher transparency antiglare films.
Regarding claim 5, Yabuta, teaches the second region (22 – binder only region) includes a portion in which the particles are not piled up or the particles are not present.
Regarding claim 6, Yabuta teaches the first region has a width of 7.7 μm or more [0042], and the second region has a width of 7 μm or more (shows several regions of 22 – binder much larger than particle regions).
Regarding claim 9, Yabuta teaches the optical layer includes a region in which the particles are piled up in a thickness direction of the optical layer (fig. 1A clustered regions of 21 particles ), and a region (22 binder without 21 or 12 exposed region) in which the particles are not piled up or the particles are not present.
Regarding claims 11-13, while Yabuta does not explicitly teach Smr1 defined in ISO25178 is 10 to 30% a surface height BH20 at a load area ratio of 20% defined in ISO25178 is within a range of 0.04 μm to 0.5 μm and a surface height BH80 at a load area ratio of 80% defined in ISO25178 is within a range of −0.3 μm to 0 μm. These appear to be a function of particle size/ shape and density. MPEP 2144.05 states:
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
The specification discloses these values however does not provide a basis for any steps done to achieve these values that would distinguish it from the prior art or disclosed any determination that the values are critical. Absent any finding of unexpected results examiner finds these values would be achievable through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Yabuta teaches the particles are substantially composed of spherical particles.
Regarding claim 15, Yabuta teaches the surface of the optical layer has an Rsm of more than 0 μm and 35 μm or less, the Rsm being an average length of roughness curve elements determined in accordance with JIS B0601: 2001 [0040].
Regarding claim 16, Yabuta teaches the surface of the optical layer has an Ra within a range of 20 nm to 120 nm, the Ra being an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness curve determined in accordance with JIS B0601: 2001 [0037].
Regarding claim 17, Yabuta teaches the second surface of the glass plate has an Ra of 10 nm or less, the Ra being an arithmetic average roughness of a roughness curve determined in accordance with JIS B0601: 2001 [0041].
Regarding claim 18, Yabuta teaches in the matrix contains silicon oxide as a main component [0048].
Regarding claim 19, Yabuta does not explicitly teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the adhesive layer is larger than the refractive index of air and smaller than the refractive index of the glass plate. However prior art optical adhesives will generally have a refractive index of less than glass and general physics dictates it will be greater than that of air which is considered to be 1 and examiner takes official notice of this.
Regarding claim 20, Yabuta does not explicitly teach the glass plate has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm however this is considered obvious as glass optical films in the prior art have been known to fall in this range and applying a commercial glass product in this range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and examiner takes official notice of this.
Regarding claim 21, Yabuta teaches a cover member to be included in a display device having a display panel, comprising: a glass plate (substrate 10) having a first surface and a second surface; and an optical layer (22 binder) that is layered on the second surface of the glass plate. Yabuta does not explicitly teach an adhesive layer that is layered on the first surface of the glass plate and fixes the glass plate to the display panel. However given Yabuta discloses a display and the anti-glare film attached substrate is between the screen and the antiglare film [0057] than an adhesion layer for fixing the antiglare film attached substrate would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Yabuta does not explicitly teach the second surface of the glass plate is covered by at least the matrix of the optical layer. However Yabuta does disclose the coverage of the matrix as a function of glossiness [0034]. Therefore Yabuta recognizes this tradeoff for sharpness vs antiglare and while Yabuta does only teach a limit of 90% coverage [0033] this is not considered a teaching away as one of ordinary skill in the art can desire even more antiglare than the embodiments presented in Yabuta. JP 2007-308584 teaches a similar antiglare film that covers the entire second surface of the corresponding glass plate (see fig. 1) with a matrix (acrylic resin 3) covering the entire surface. This would enhance the antiglare effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the second surface of the glass plate is covered by at least the matrix of the optical layer to maximize the antiglare effect.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuta JP 2019215448A the corresponding US application US20210255364 is relied upon as a translation in view of Jewhurst WO2014/143618.
Regarding claim 8, Yabuta teaches all the limitations of claim 8 except particles are substantially composed of plate-shaped particles, each of the plate-shaped particles has a thickness within a range of 0.3 nm to 3 nm and a main surface average diameter within a range of 10 nm to 1,000 nm, and the main surfaces of the plate-shaped particles are oriented substantially in parallel with the second surface of the glass plate. Jewhurst teaches particles are substantially composed of plate-shaped particles (fig. 3 sheet particles 204), each of the plate-shaped particles has a thickness within a range of 0.3 nm to 3 nm (page 3 last paragraph- page 4 first paragraph )and a main surface average diameter within a range of 10 nm to 1,000 nm page 3 last paragraph- page 4 first paragraph ), and the main surfaces of the plate-shaped particles are oriented substantially in parallel with the second surface of the glass plate (100 substrate) enabling improved antiglare performance (page 2 – technical field). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yabuta in view of Jewhurst to improve antiglare performance.
Regarding claim 10, Yabuta teaches all the limitations of claim 10 except a difference in height measured from the second surface of the glass plate between the highest portion and the lowest portion of the optical layer is three times or more as large as the average particle diameter of the particles. Jewhurst teaches a difference in height measured from the second surface of the glass plate between the highest portion and the lowest portion of the optical layer (up to 100 micron thickness) is three times or more as large as the average particle diameter (300-500 nm) of the particles (page 3 2nd last paragraph to page 4 last paragraph) enabling improved antiglare performance (page 2 – technical field). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yabuta in view of Jewhurst to improve antiglare performance.
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 the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871