DETAILED ACTION
A response, presenting arguments but not amendments, was entered on 6/3/26.
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 argues that an essential element of Yang is that the particles must extend beyond the resin and that the current invention is distinct in that it does not include such a feature. This is not persuasive. Nothing in the current claim language precludes the particles from extending beyond the resin layer. If such a feature is an essential aspect of applicant’s invention, the Office suggests including a limitation which captures this concept (e.g., that the nanoparticle monolayer is fully embedded within a resin matrix).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2006/0074172) in light of David et al. (US 2016/0370506).
Claim 17: Yang teaches an antireflective hardcoat for a display (Abst.; ¶ 0014) comprising: a glass substrate (¶ 0061) coated with a layer of cured resin which has silica nanoparticles concentrated at an upper surface of the resin (¶¶ 0028-0029; Figs. 1, 5). Yang further teaches that the silica nanoparticles form a continuous self-assembled monolayer (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0044-0045).
Yang, however, fails to teach that the nanoparticles are one of the claimed materials. David, like Yang, teaches an antireflective hardcoat comprising oxide nanoparticles (Abst.; ¶ 0012) and explains that zirconia can be selected as the nanoparticle in place of silica (¶ 0045). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected zirconia in place of silica in Yang with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 18: Yang teaches the same materials (i.e. (meth)acrylate resin and silica nanoparticles (¶¶ 0028-0029, 0041) in the same configuration as those which applicant claims to possess the claimed delta haze properties. Therefore, this property is considered inherent in the hardcoat of Yang.
Alternatively, Yang teaches that the haze of the coating can be adjusted by adjusting the recipe and process conditions (¶0067). 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(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a delta haze of less than 5 with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights