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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 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
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, 4-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (2003/0147140, of record) in view of Wakizaka et al. (2013/0265529, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a resin film (Figure 1, 1, anti-reflection film; [0048] teaches the binder is made of a transparent resin) comprising: a low-refractive-index layer having a refractive index of 1.40 or less (4, low-refractive index layer; [0048] teaches the refractive index of 4, low-refractive index layer, is between 1.35 and 1.45); and an anisotropic diffusion layer configured to diffuse light anisotropically (3, scattering layer; [0060] teaches the scattering intensity varies continuously when the viewing angle is continuously changed, thus interpreted as anisotropic scattering), wherein the anisotropic diffusion layer comprises anisotropic particles having an anisotropic shape (5, scatterers; Figure 1, [0060]), the anisotropic particles having a longitudinal direction aligned along one direction (Figure 1), and a resin portion which diffuses the anisotropic particles and is formed of a resin ([0051, 0073] teach a transparent resin in which the scatterers are dispersed), and wherein a reflectivity excluding a specular reflection light component is 1.0% or less (at least [0120] teaches a reflectance of 1, anti-reflection film, to be 1.1% or less).
Ito fails to teach wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass. Ito and Wakizaka are related because both teach a resin film comprising a low-refractive-index layer.
Wakizaka teaches a resin film (at least [0024] teaches an anisotropic layer formed from a curable resin) comprising: a low-refractive-index layer ([0024] teaches a low refractive index layer) having a refractive index of 1.40 or less ([0024] teaches the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.2 to 1.40), wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder ([0024] teaches the low refractive index layer contains a binder) with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder ([0024] teach the low refractive index layer contains fines particles A; [0028] teaches fine particles A are hollow silica particles) and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass ([0082] teaches the content of fine particles A is preferably 20% by mass to 60% by mass).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Wakizaka and provide wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass. Doing so would allow for improved antireflection properties while also increasing the film strength.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic particles have a length in the longitudinal direction of 1 μm to 200 μm ([0058]) and a length in a short direction of 0.1 μm to 10 μm ([0059]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 4, wherein an aspect ratio which is a ratio of the length of the anisotropic particles in the longitudinal direction to the length in the short direction is 10 or more ([0058-0059] include values in which the aspect ratio is 10 or more).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein an interface between the anisotropic particles and the resin portion is compatible (at least [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein a refractive index of the resin portion is 1.45 to 1.65 ([0048]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic particles contain at least one of metal oxide, a carbonate compound, a hydroxide compound, or a phosphate compound (at least [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein a difference in refractive index of the resin portion and the low-refractive-index layer is 0.1 or more ([0048]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic diffusion layer has a haze value of 20% to 80% ([0038]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the anisotropic diffusion layer has an anisotropic diffusivity of 3 or more.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the anisotropic diffusivity to be 3 or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233). Doing so would allow for improved diffusion at viewing angles, thereby improving imaging light.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic diffusion layer functions as a base material which supports the low-refractive-index layer (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ito discloses a method of making a resin film (Figure 1, 1, anti-reflection film; [0048] teaches the binder is made of a transparent resin), the method comprising: forming a low-refractive-index layer having a refractive index of 1.40 or less (4, low-refractive index layer; [0048] teaches the refractive index of 4, low-refractive index layer, is between 1.35 and 1.45); and forming an anisotropic diffusion layer configured to diffuse light anisotropically (3, scattering layer; [0060] teaches the scattering intensity varies continuously when the viewing angle is continuously changed, thus interpreted as anisotropic scattering), wherein the anisotropic diffusion layer comprises anisotropic particles having an anisotropic shape (5, scatterers; Figure 1, [0060]), the anisotropic particles having a longitudinal direction aligned along one direction (Figure 1), and a resin portion which diffuses the anisotropic particles and is formed of a resin ([0051, 0073] teach a transparent resin in which the scatterers are dispersed), and wherein a reflectivity excluding a specular reflection light component is 1.0% or less (at least [0120] teaches a reflectance of 1, anti-reflection film, to be 1.1% or less).
Ito fails to teach wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass. Ito and Wakizaka are related because both teach a resin film comprising a low-refractive-index layer.
Wakizaka teaches a resin film (at least [0024] teaches an anisotropic layer formed from a curable resin) comprising: a low-refractive-index layer ([0024] teaches a low refractive index layer) having a refractive index of 1.40 or less ([0024] teaches the low refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.2 to 1.40), wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder ([0024] teaches the low refractive index layer contains a binder) with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder ([0024] teach the low refractive index layer contains fines particles A; [0028] teaches fine particles A are hollow silica particles) and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass ([0082] teaches the content of fine particles A is preferably 20% by mass to 60% by mass).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Wakizaka and provide wherein the low-refractive-index layer comprises a binder with hollow silica particles distributed in the binder and wherein a blending amount of the hollow silica particles is up to 65% by mass. Doing so would allow for improved antireflection properties while also increasing the film strength.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Ito discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the anisotropic layer is formed by stretching (at least [0229]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Ito discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the formation of at least one of the anisotropic layer and the low-refractive-index layer comprises: preparing a coating solution ([0024]); applying the coating solution to form a coating film ([0024]); drying the coating film ([0024]); and polymerizing the coating film (at least [0073, 0083, 0085]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Ito discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the step of polymerizing the coating film comprises applying at least one of ultraviolet light or heat (at least [0085]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (2003/0147140, of record) in view of Wakizaka et al. (2013/0265529, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama (2007/0172604, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the anisotropic particles have a refractive index in the longitudinal direction and a refractive index in a short direction different from each other. The modified Ito and Sugiyama are related because both teach a resin film with anisotropic particles.
Sugiyama teaches a resin film wherein the anisotropic particles have a refractive index in the longitudinal direction and a refractive index in a short direction different from each other (at least [0177, 0179]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Sugiyama and provide wherein the anisotropic particles have a refractive index in the longitudinal direction and a refractive index in a short direction different from each other. Doing so would allow for improved optical properties over a long period of time by including birefringence.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the following relationships (I) and (II) is satisfied, where a refractive index of the resin portion is defined as n.sub.b, a refractive index of the anisotropic particles in the longitudinal direction is defined as n.sub.ax, and a refractive index of the anisotropic particles in the short direction is defined as n.sub.ay:
|n.sub.b−n.sub.ax|<0.04 and 0.04<|n.sub.b−n.sub.ay|<0.50 (at least Abstract); (I)
|n.sub.b−n.sub.ay|<0.04 and 0.04<|n.sub.b−n.sub.ax|<0.50 (at least Abstract). (II)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (2003/0147140, of record) in view of Wakizaka et al. (2013/0265529, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shoshi et al. (2006/0171034, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a high-refractive-index layer having a refractive index of 1.60 or more. The modified Ito and Shoshi are related because both teach a resin film.
Shoshi teaches a resin film further comprising: a high-refractive-index layer having a refractive index of 1.60 or more (at least Abstract teaches a hard coat layer with a refractive index of 1.60 to 1.75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Shoshi and provide a high-refractive-index layer having a refractive index of 1.60 or more. Doing so would allow for improved antireflection and durability.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a hard coating layer having a refractive index of 1.54 or more. The modified Ito and Shoshi are related because both teach a resin film.
Shoshi teaches a resin further comprising: a hard coating layer having a refractive index of 1.54 or more (at least Abstract teaches a hard coat layer with a refractive index of 1.60 to 1.75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Shoshi and provide a hard coating layer having a refractive index of 1.54 or more. Doing so would allow for improved antireflection and durability.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (2003/0147140, of record) in view of Wakizaka et al. (2013/0265529, of record), as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Amimori et al. (2005/0001957, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ito discloses the resin film according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a base material which supports the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer, wherein the base material is provided between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer. The modified Ito and Amimori are related because both teach a resin film.
Amimori teaches a resin film further comprising: a base material which supports the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer (Figure 15 depicts 1, transparent substrate film, supporting 3, low-refractive index layer, and 2, spectrally anisotropic scattering layer), wherein the base material is provided between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer (Figure 15 depicts 1, transparent substrate film, between 3, low-refractive index layer, and 2, spectrally anisotropic scattering layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and provide a base material which supports the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer, wherein the base material is provided between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic diffusion layer. Doing so would allow for improved film adhesion and durability of the multiple layers.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Ito discloses the method of claim 16, but fails to teach further comprising: providing a base material and arranging the base material between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic layer. The modified Ito and Amimori are related because both teach a resin film.
Amimori teaches a method further comprising: providing a base material (Figure 15 depicts 1, transparent substrate film) and arranging the base material between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic layer (Figure 15 depicts 1, transparent substrate film, between 3, low-refractive index layer, and 2, spectrally anisotropic scattering layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ito to incorporate the teachings of Amimori and provide a base material and arranging the base material between the low-refractive-index layer and the anisotropic layer. Doing so would allow for improved film adhesion and durability of the multiple layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872