RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/06/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 08/06/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (WO 2019/064969) in view of Watanabe et al. (JP2003-062920), Ihashi et al. (JP 20003-08846) and Katagiri et al. (WO 2021/106797).
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto et al. discloses an optical laminate comprising a transparent film substrate (Fig. 1, 10, page 3) including a primer layer (i.e. adhesion layer) (Fig. 1, 50, page 4, last 2 paragraphs), high and low refractive index layers (i.e. optical function layers) (Fig. 1, 51-54, page 5, bottom half) and an antifouling layer (page 6, bottom 2 paragraphs to page 7, first paragraph). Miyamoto et al. further discloses that the water vapor transmission of the laminate is in the range of 1g/m2.day or less. (Abstract).
Miyamoto et al. does not specifically disclose a hue change value after being brought in contact with sodium hydroxide under the conditions of the limitations of claim 1. The specification of the present application indicates that these properties are the direct result of using silicon oxide with additional elements such as Zr or Al as the low refractive index material (par. [0051]), vapor deposition (par. [0126]) and glow discharge treatment to the underlying layer of the antifouling layer (par. [0132]). The limitation directed to the hue change is a measurement of the improved alkali resistance.
Watanabe et al. teaches an antireflection film having improved reflectivity and excellent alkali resistance. (Abstract). Watanabe et al. teaches that SiO2 is known to have poor alkali resistance and since antireflection films are attached to the polarizing plate in an alkaline environment, improved alkali resistance is desirable. (par. [0006]). Watanabe et al. teaches including Zr in the SiO2 oxide in order to improve the alkali resistance of the layer. (page [0008], page 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Zr into the SiO2 material of the antireflective layers in Miyamoto et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious include Zr into the SiO2 layers in order to improve the alkali resistance of the antireflective optical laminate, which is important due to the alkaline environment present during the bonding of the optical laminate to the polarizing plate
Ihashi et al. teaches a method of making an antifouling layer having improved wear and solvent resistance (i.e. would also have improved NaOH resistance due to preventing penetration of the solution into the layer) wherein the antifouling layer is formed by pre-treating the underlying substrate. (Abstract). Examples of pretreatment include discharge plasma, electron beam and ion beam (Abstract) which allows for better bonding between the substrate and the antifouling layer and contributes to the improved physical properties of the layer. (page 5, middle paragraph). Ihashi et al. further discloses that the formation of the antifouling layer is preferably done using a vapor deposition process as opposed to a solvent based one, in order to adjust the working environment and film thickness. (page 5, 1st full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a glow discharge treatment on the underlying substrate of the antifouling layer in Miyamoto et al. in view of the teachings of Ihashi et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the glow discharge treatment in order to improve the bonding between the substrate material and the antifouling layer which results in improved physical properties such as solvent and wear resistance.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the antifouling layer disclosed in Miyamoto et al. using a vapor deposition process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a vapor deposition process in view of the improved ability to adjust the working environment and thickness as taught in Ihashi et al.
In view of the combined teachings of Miyamoto et al., Watanabe et al. and Ihashi et al., it would have been obvious to improve the alkali resistance of the optical laminate in Miyamoto et al. (based on the teachings of Watanabe et al.) as well as form the antifouling layer using processes disclosed in Ihashi et al. which improve the physical properties of the layers. The result would be an optical laminate having improved alkali resistance such that it would be able to meet the hue change limitations in claim 1 due to the improved properties. Since the hue change is a measure of alkali resistance and the property is an art recognized parameter which is important for the formation of such optical laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the process and composition of the laminate to impart as high alkali resistance as possible, which would be reflected in a hue change value as close to 0 as possible.
Miyamoto et al. does not disclose the average surface roughness Ra or the average length of the elements Rsm of the antifouling layer.
Katagiri et al. teaches an antireflection film laminate structure including an antifouling layer that has a surface arithmetic average roughness of 0.05 to 0.25 microns (i.e. 50 to 250 nm) and an average irregularity interval Rsm of 60-200 microns, which overlaps with the present claims. (Abstract). Katigiri et al. discloses that these ranges allow for improved properties such as scratch resistance. (page 9, last paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the Ra and Rsm of the antifouling layer of Miyamoto et al. to fall within the range disclosed in Katagiri et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to achieve Ra and Rsm values in the range disclosed in Miyamoto et al. due to the result effective nature of the parameters for achieving improved properties such as scratch resistance of the antifouling layer, thereby resulting in an improved antifouling layer.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above. The content of residual fluorine after being brought in contact with NaOH is a measurement of the alkali resistance of the antifouling layer due to the glow discharge/vapor deposition process. (Specification, par. [0199]).
Regarding claim 8, Miyamoto et al. discloses that the thickness of the anti-fouling layer is in the range of 1 to 100 nm. (page 7, top paragraph), overlapping with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 10-12, Miyamoto et al. teaches high and low refractive index layers which are alternately laminated (i.e. optical function layers) (Fig. 1, 51-54, page 5, bottom half)
Regarding claim 13, Miyamoto et al. teaches providing the antireflection layer on the surface of the low refractive index layer. (Fog/element 54, page 6, bottom 2 paragraphs to page 7, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Miyamoto et al. teaches that the primer layer may include a metal oxide. (silicon oxide, page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Miyamoto et al. teaches the anti-fouling layer includes a fluorine containing organic compound. (page 7, first paragraph).
Regarding claims 17-18, Miyamoto et al. teaches a hard coating between the substrate and adhesion layer. (Fig. 1 element 11, page 3, bottom half of page).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (WO 2019/064969) in view of Watanabe et al. (JP2003-062920), Ihashi et al. (JP 20003-08846) and Katagiri et al. (WO 2021/106797), further in view of Hirano (JP 2004-138662) and Nakagawa et al. (WO 2020/027037).
Miyamoto in view of Ihashi, Watanabe and Katagiriet al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto in view of Ihashi and Watanabe et al. does not disclose a haze of 2% or less and a difference in water contact angle, after being subjected to a scratch test under the parameters of claim 3, of 12o or smaller.
Hirano teaches an antireflection coating for an image display device wherein the haze value of the substrate is 2.0% or less. (Abstract and par. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for use a material having a haze value of 2.0% or less for the substrate in Miyamoto et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a material having a haze of 2.0% or less in order to maximize the amount of clear light transmittance for use in optical displays which desirably require clear images for user satisfaction.
Nakagawa et al. teaches an optical laminate including a water replant film on the surface (i.e. an antifouling layer) (Abstract). The water repellant material includes a fluorine containing organosilicon compound and silicon oxide to improve the hardness. (page 2, last full paragraph). The coating is so durable that after performing a durability test for 1000 hours, the difference in contact angle is 10o or less. (Abstract and page 7, first full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anti-fouling coating having a durability such that its resistance thereof is as high as possible with a minimal change in contact angle before and after being subjected to weather test.
While the test conditions are not identical to those under the parameters presently claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the durability of the coating such that the contact angle would be less than 10o according to routine durability tests such as those involving a scratch test as claimed. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Miyamoto, Ihashi and Hirano et al. teach forming an optical laminate such that the anti-fouling layer is provided with high durability according to the same process as presently claimed, it would be expected to possess the same physical properties, including a scratch resistance property measured according to the limitations in claim 3.
Claims 4-7 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1 and 6, above. The feature of residual fluorine atoms and color is taught by the combination of Miyamoto, Watanabe and Ihashi et al. The features of the haze are taught in Hirano et al. and the feature of providing a durable anti-fouling counting which resists durability tests is taught by Nakagawa et al. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Miyamoto, Ihashi and Hirano et al. teach forming an optical laminate such that the anti-fouling layer is provided with high durability according to the same process as presently claimed, it would be expected to possess the same physical properties, including a scratch resistance property measured according to the limitations in claim 3.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (WO 2019/064969) in view of Watanabe et al. (JP2003-062920), Ihashi et al. (JP 20003-08846) and Katagiri et al. (WO 2021/106797), further in view of Oishi et al. (JP 2008-062460).
Miyamoto in view of Ihashi, Watanabe and Katagiri et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Miyamoto in view of Ihashi and Watanabe et al.. does not disclose an initial fluorine content of the antifouling layer.
Oishi et al. teaches an optical laminate including a fluorine containing antifouling layer on the outer surface thereof. (Abstract). Oishi et al. teaches that the fluorine content of the thin film is at least 20% and the O/F content is 0.20 and less than 2.0 which affects the adhesion of the antifouling layer as well as the durability thereof. (page 25, bottom half of page). The prior art in Oishi et al. therefore recognizes the result effective nature of the initial fluorine content in the anti-fouling layer for controlling the adhesion and durability properties of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the initial fluorine content in the anti-fouling layer of Miyamoto et al. in view of the explicit result effective nature of the fluorine content in the prior art. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount 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 amount of fluorine in the anti-fouling layer in order to adjust the adhesion and durability properties of the layer (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).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 08/060/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 08/06/2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/05/2025