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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments of September 12, 2025 have been entered. This Response does not amend, add, or cancel claims such that claims 1, 2, and 6-8 remain pending. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 6-8 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.
In the Remarks of September 12, 2025 applicant argues against the use of Nakamura and Nishida to form an obviousness rejection of Claim 1. The Office agrees with this assertion and therefore new art is cited in order to form a rejection of independent claim 1.
Newly cited references Nakajima (JP2012189754A) and Serrano (US 20120069442 A1) have been relied upon to further reject independent Claim 1. Previously cited reference Nishida (JP-2005181544-A) has been further used to support the rejection of dependent Claim 2.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20050175796 A1), previously cited, Nakajima (JP2012189754A), newly cited, further in view of Serrano (US 20120069442 A1), newly cited.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches, In Fig. 1(a): an antireflection substrate (“anti-reflection film”; [0001]) formed by laminating the following layers (A), (B), (C) and (D) in this order:
a substrate layer (A) (“1 Transparent support”; [0036]),
a hard coating layer (B) (“2 Hard coat layer”; [0037]),
a light absorbing layer (C) (“3 High refraction film”; [0038], “The high refraction film may comprise a resin, a surface active agent, an antistat, a coupling agent, a thickening agent, a coloring inhibitor, a coloring material (pigment, dye), an anti-foaming agent, a leveling agent, a fire retardant, an ultraviolet absorber, an infrared absorber”; [0153]), and
a low refractive index layer (D) (“4 Low refraction film”; [0039], formed by curing a low refractive index resin composition containing an active energy ray-curable resin, hollow silica and a fluorine compound by an active energy ray (“The outermost layer is preferably formed by irradiating a coating composition having a fluorine-containing compound and optional arbitrary components dissolved or dispersed therein with light or electron beam or heating the coating composition to cause crosslinking reaction or polymerization reaction”; [0201], “Preferred examples of the inorganic fine particles to be incorporated in the outermost layer include silicon dioxide(silica), fluorine-containing fine particles (e.g., magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride), etc. Particularly preferred among these inorganic fine particles is silicon dioxide(silica)”; [0197]) …
wherein the light absorbing layer (C) (3) is formed by a dry film formation selected from CVD and PVD (“It has been usually practiced to form these thin transparent films of metal oxide by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) method or physical vapor deposition (PVD) method”; [0003]), and …
the fluorine compound in the low refractive index layer (D) (4) has a perfluoropolyether bond (“An outermost layer mainly composed of fluorine-containing compound”; [0182], “Examples of the fluorine-containing ether include perfluoropolyethers, etc.”; [0192]).
Nonetheless, Nakamura does not appear to explicitly disclose: … a film thickness of the light absorbing layer (C) is 2 to 15 nm … the active energy ray-curable resin in the low refractive index layer (D) contains a urethane (meth)acrylate component.
However, in a related invention in the field of polymer based optical components, Serrano teaches in Fig. 1: a film thickness of the light absorbing layer (C) is 2 to 15 nm (“the absorbent layer is between 10 nm and 1500 nm thick and it is made from a material from the group made up of those metals, metal oxides and metal nitrides that are suitable for producing a transparent layer within the visible spectrum via deposition by sputtering”; [0013]).
Furthermore, Serrano teaches this configuration such that “the lenses according the invention have some layers, particularly one absorbent layer, with a very precisely determined thickness” (Serrano, [0015]).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "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 Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thickness of the light blocking layer to be between 10 and 30 micrometers, which overlaps the disclosed range of about 30 to about 50 micrometers, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "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) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Serrano to provide a device in which a film thickness of the light absorbing layer (C) is 2 to 15 nm, for the purpose of precisely selecting the thickness of the layers in order to optimize the optical effects of the invention (Serrano, [0015]).
However, Serrano fails to teach: the active energy ray-curable resin in the low refractive index layer (D) contains a urethane (meth)acrylate component.
In a related invention in the field of anti-reflection films, Nakajima teaches in Fig. 1: the active energy ray-curable resin in the low refractive index layer (D) contains a urethane (meth)acrylate component (“The low refractive index coating agent contains an ultraviolet curable material, low refractive index nanoparticles, a silicone-based material, and a photopolymerization initiator”; [0021], “The ultraviolet curable material added to the low refractive index coating agent may be an acrylic material. Examples of acrylic materials that can be used include polyfunctional or polyfunctional (meth) acrylate compounds such as acrylic acid or methacrylic acid esters of polyhydric alcohols, and polyfunctional urethane (meth)acrylate compounds synthesized from diisocyanatos; [0022]).
Furthermore, Nakajima teaches this configuration such that the “low refractive index coating agent [is] used exclusively for producing the anti-reflection film” (Nakajima, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura and Serrano to incorporate the teachings of Nakajima to provide a device in which the active energy ray-curable resin in the low refractive index layer (D) contains a urethane (meth)acrylate component, for the purpose of selecting a material capable of producing the anti-reflective film (Nakajima, [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano teach the antireflection substrate according to claim 1. Nakamura further teaches: a refractive index of the low refractive index layer (D) at a wavelength of 550 nm is 1.45 or less (“The refractive index of the low refraction layer is preferably from 1.20 to 1.49, more preferably from 1.20 to 1.45, particularly from 1.20 to 1.44”; [0223], [0327]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano teach the antireflection substrate according to claim 1. Nakamura further teaches: the antireflection substrate has a luminous reflectance of 1.0% or less ({see Table 1 and paragraphs [0439]-[0448] in which the average reflectance is measured to be less than 1.0%}).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano teach the antireflection substrate according to claim 1. Nakamura further teaches the antireflection substrate which does not comprise an antifouling layer (“For the purpose of providing properties such as stainproofness, water resistance, chemical resistance and slipperiness, a known silicone-based or fluorine-based stainproofing agent, a lubricant or the like may be properly added”; [0254], {the device is not claimed to have a layer strictly used for antifouling properties. Instead, materials with antifouling properties are incorporated into the layers rather than providing a layer used solely for the purpose of antifouling}).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20050175796 A1), Nakajima (JP2012189754A), and Serrano (US 20120069442 A1), as in Claim 1, and further in view of Nishida (JP-2005181544-A), previously presented.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano teach the antireflection substrate according to claim 1. Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano fails to exilically teach that: the light absorbing layer (C) (5) is formed from at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, titanium oxynitride, zirconium nitride, gold, silver, and copper.
However, in a related invention in the field of anti-reflection substrates, Nishida teaches in Fig. 1: the light absorbing layer (C) (5) is formed from at least one selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, titanium oxynitride, zirconium nitride, gold, silver, and copper (“The light absorbing layer contains carbon black fine particles and titanium nitride fine particles”; [0045]).
Furthermore, Nishida teaches the material of the light absorbing layer such that is it “determined depending on the attenuation coefficient and the like of the light absorbing layer 5 to be formed” (Nishida, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura, Nakajima, and Serrano to incorporate the teachings of Nishida to provide a device in which the light absorbing layer is selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride, titanium oxynitride, zirconium nitride, gold, silver, and copper, for the purpose of optimizing the attenuation coefficient of the layer (Nishida, [0063]).
Conclusion
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 RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872