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 of August 30, 2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Takeda reference. But see also the newly-cited Seto reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 has been amended from its original form to recite: “wherein the first functional layer has a glossiness in a range of 40 to 140 GU (Gloss Unit)”.
However, the phrase “gloss unit” does not appear in Applicant’s original disclosure, nor does it appear that the phrase “gloss unit” would be an immediately apparent interpretation of the disclosure of “GU”. In the Remarks of August 30, 2025 (see, e.g., page 7), Applicant has not explained how the newly-recited term “Gloss Unit” is supported by the originally-filed disclosure.
Therefore, it appears that Applicant was not in possession of the subject matter of the present Claim 9 at the time the application was filed. Thus, Claim 9 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the phrase: “wherein the first functional layer has a glossiness in a range of 40 to 140 GU (Gloss Unit)”. However, it is unclear what is meant by “GU” or “Gloss Unit”. The Office is unaware of any standard measurement of glossiness designated by “GU” or “Gloss Units”. Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide any explanation or guidance. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “wherein the first functional layer has a glossiness”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al., US 2018/0162091 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Takeda discloses: An electronic device, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an electronic module (image display device; paragraphs [0018], [0022], [0023], [0055], [0111], [0218], [0305], [0305] of Takeda);
a protective substrate disposed on the electronic module (translucent substrate 3 or 4; FIGS. 1, 4, 6, 8 of Takeda);
a functional layer disposed on the protective substrate, wherein the functional layer has a hardness in a range of 4H to 9H (the layers above substrate 3 or 4 such as antiglare layer 5 and antireflection layer 7 which are disposed on translucent substrate 3 or 4 and having a pencil hardness of at least 5H; paragraphs [0109], [0165], [0196], [0208], [0296] and FIGS. 1, 6, 8 and TABLE 4 of Takeda);
wherein the protective substrate has a first curved surface and a second curved surface opposite to the first curved surface, the functional layer is disposed on the first curved surface (image display device may have a curved shape; paragraphs [0055]-[0058] of Takeda);
the functional layer comprises a first functional layer and a second functional layer, and the first functional layer is disposed between the second functional layer and the protective substrate (sequence of layers above substrate 3 or 4 may include antiglare layer 5, antireflection layer 7, and water/oil-repellent layer 9, wherein antiglare layer 5 and antireflection layer 7 are disposed between translucent substrate 3 or 4 and antireflection layer 7; FIGS. 6, 8 of Takeda);
wherein at least one of the first functional layer and the second functional layer comprises an anti-glare layer (antiglare layer 5 and antireflection layer 7; FIGS. 6, 8 of Takeda); and
wherein a radius of curvature of the first curved surface of the protective substrate is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 7000 mm (radius of curvature of preferably 50 to 3,000 mm; paragraphs [0055]-[0058] of Takeda).
Regarding Claim 4, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: further comprising an anti-smudge layer disposed on the functional layer (water/oil-repellent layer 9; paragraphs [0173], [0174], [0188]-[0217] and FIGS. 6, 8 of Takeda).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first functional layer has a glossiness in a range of 40 to 140 GU (any or all of layers of antiglare layer 5, antireflection layer 7, and water/oil-repellent layer 9 would necessarily have at least some glossiness because they are comprised of materials which exhibit at least some degree of specular reflection; FIGS. 6, 8 and TABLE 4 of Takeda; see rejection of Claim 9 above based on 35 USC 112a and 35 USC 112(b)).
Regarding Claim 11, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second functional layer is a stack of insulating layers with different refractive indices (antireflection layer 7 may comprise a multilayer structure wherein a low refractive index layer having a relatively low refractive index and a high refractive index layer having a relatively high refractive index are alternately laminated; paragraph [0177] and FIGS. 6-8 of Takeda).
Regarding Claim 21, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first curved surface and the second curved surface of the protective substrate are shaped by heating (the Office notes that the claim language “shaped by heating” appears to imply processing steps which would render this claim a “product-by-process” claim, whereby even though the claim may be limited by and defined by the process, a determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and thus, even if a prior art product is made by a different process, if the resulting prior art product is substantially identical, the prior art product will anticipate the claimed product; see MPEP § 2113, Section I, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698; 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); however, regardless of this, Takeda does in fact disclose that the substrate 3 may be formed using a fusion method or draw down method; paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 6, 8 of Takeda).
Regarding Claim 22, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second functional layer comprises an oxide (materials for the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer of the anti-reflection layer 7 may include niobium oxide [Nb2O5] and silicon oxide [SiO2], respectively; see paragraphs [0175]-[0182] of Takeda, but see especially paragraph [0182] of Takeda).
Regarding Claim 23, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 22 and further discloses: wherein the second functional layer comprises silicon oxide (SiO2), niobium oxide (Nb2O5), or a mixture thereof (materials for the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer of the anti-reflection layer 7 may include niobium oxide [Nb2O5] and silicon oxide [SiO2], respectively; see paragraphs [0175]-[0182] of Takeda, but see especially paragraph [0182] of Takeda).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda, or as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Byun et al., US 2022/0381954 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of layer density, such that: wherein the functional layer, or first functional layer, has a density of 1.3 to 2.7 g/cm3.
However, it has been held that where 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takeda discloses, with respect to layers, such as anti-glare layer 5 and anti-reflection layer 7, taking into account the factors of porosity, hardness, and durability (see, e.g., paragraphs [0107], [0109], [0125]-[0127], [0142], [0145], [0184], [0185] of Takeda). These parameters would be correlated with density, such that the density of these layers must similarly be taken into account. For example, a layer which is not dense enough will not satisfy a minimum hardness or durability, and a layer which is too dense may not satisfactorily adjust refractive index through an increase in porosity.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed density for the layer(s) of Takeda in accordance with optimizing the several desired parameters outlined by Takeda in at least paragraphs [0107], [0109], [0125]-[0127], [0142], [0145], [0184], [0185].
Furthermore, Byun is related to Takeda with respect to anti-reflection layers of display device.
Byun teaches: wherein the functional layer, or first functional layer, has a density of 1.3 to 2.7 g/cm3 (low refractive index layers having particles of densities ranging from 1.79 g/cm3 to 2.65 g/cm3; paragraphs [0187]-[0190] of Byun).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed density for the layer(s) of Takeda because such densities were in fact known in the prior art for functional layers of display device and deemed suitable for low refractive index layers, as evidenced by paragraphs [0187]-[0190] of Byun.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda, or as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Seto et al., US 2004/0043210 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 8, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of porosity, such that: wherein the first functional layer has a porosity of about 10 to 90%.
However, it has been held that where 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takeda discloses the advantageous use of porous materials for the anti-glare layer 5 and anti-reflection layer 7, including a silica type porous film, e.g., having porous particles therein, specifically stating that porosity may be adjusted to achieve a desired refractive index (see, e.g., paragraphs [0107], [0125]-[0127], [0184], [0185] of Takeda).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a value within the wide range of claimed porosity for the layer(s) of Takeda in accordance with mere optimization or discovery of workable ranges, as evidenced by Takeda in at least paragraphs [0107], [0125]-[0127], [0184], [0185].
Furthermore, Seto is related to Takeda with respect to anti-reflection layers of display device.
Seto teaches: wherein the first functional layer has a porosity of about 10 to 90% (internal porosity of the binder layer of the antireflection film is preferably between 5% and 50%, which permits satisfactory adjustment [lowering] of the refractive index, while still providing strength suitable for abrasion resistance; paragraphs [0005], [0025] Seto).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed density for the layer(s) of Takeda because such porosity was in fact known in the prior art for functional layers of display device and deemed suitable for anti-reflection layers, as evidenced by paragraphs [0005], [0025] of Seto.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda, or as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Fukaya et al., US 2013/0271836 A1, previously-cited.
Regarding Claim 10, Takeda discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly state a numerical value for reflectivity, such that: wherein reflectivity of the first functional layer is in a range of about 0.1 to 9%.
However, it has been held that where 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. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takeda discloses an image display device, wherein such devices require high transmittance and low reflectance (low glare) for adequate performance (see, e.g., paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0022], [0023] of Takeda). Specifically, Takeda discloses the importance of high transmittance and low reflectance (low glare), and more specifically, the inclusion of antiglare layer 5 and antireflection layer 7 (see, e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0051] and FIGS. 6-8 of Takeda).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed low reflectivity of 0.1% to 9% in accordance with optimizing the display device of Takeda for high transmission of light and low reflectance of light, as evidenced by paragraphs [0002]-[0004], [0022], [0023], [0051] and FIGS. 6-8 of Takeda.
Furthermore, Fukaya is related to Takeda with respect to multi-layer covers for display device.
Fukaya teaches: wherein reflectivity of the first functional layer is in a range of about 0.1 to 9% (spectral reflectance of antireflection film 16 is equal to or lower than 1.0% with respect to a wavelength range from 390 nm to 800 nm, and equal to or lower than 0.5% with respect to a wavelength range from 400 nm to 780 nm; paragraph [0043] of Fukaya).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed low reflectivity of 0.1% to 9% for the functional layer(s) of Takeda, because such values of reflectance for anti-reflection layers were in fact known in the prior art and deemed suitable for effecting a reduction in reflection of display device, as evidenced by paragraph [0043] of Fukaya.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872