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 Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 11/6/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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, 3-15, 18, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (US 2007/0146887 A1) in view of Ohata et al
Regarding claims 1, 3-15, and 21, Ikeda teaches and optical laminate (e.g., antireflection films) that comprise a plastic film (e.g., transparent support comprising a plastic film), optical function layers (e.g., antireflection layer comprising low-refractive index layer and high-refractive index layer in contact with one another or laminated to each other), an antifouling layer (e.g., low-refractive index layer with stain resistance comprising fluorine-based organic compounds having a thickness of 20 to 300 nm) (para 1, 94, 438, 439, 535, 604-606, 641, 872, 1003, 1004, 1045).
Ikeda fails to teach an adhesion layer; wherein the adhesion layer is made of an oxide of Si.
Ohata teaches anti-reflection optical members comprising an anti-smudge (i.e., antifouling) layer (para 001); wherein the base substrate may be a transparent plastic substrate comprising an inorganic compound; wherein the inorganic compound may be made of silicon dioxide (i.e., an adhesion layer; wherein the adhesion layer is made of an oxide of Si) (para 54-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the transparent substrate of Ohata for the transparent support of Ikeda, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding the order of the layers, Ikeda teaches the purpose of its film is to satisfy all the requirements of good antireflection capability, good scratch resistance and good stain resistance and further satisfy high producibility; and that various modification and alterations can be added within the scope and spirit of the invention (para 21, 535, 2006); so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the layers a necessary, including that of alternative embodiments, to arrive at the desired antireflection capability, scratch resistance and stain resistance as well as that of high producibility. Furthermore, duplication and rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B C).
Regarding the amount of fluorine in the layers, Ikeda teaches fluorine compounds impart stain resistance, water resistance, drug resistance and slip properties (para 1045); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of fluorine in the layers to optimize these properties. Furthermore, Ohata teaches using an anti-smudge (i.e., antifouling layer) made from an antifouling material that contains and is made of a fluorine-based organic compound (abstract, para 19-20); so it would have been obvious to include the anti-smudge of Ohata in the optical laminate of Ikeda to give the optical laminate anti-smudge properties.
Ikeda suggests embodiments wherein the haze value of the antireflective film is as low as 0.1% (para 538).
The limitation “wherein the antifouling layer is made of a vapor-deposited film obtained by vapor deposition of an antifouling material” of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process 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 claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 1 and the product of Ikeda.
Regarding the properties of water vapor transmission rate, hue change, change rate of surface roughness (and therein surface roughness), contact angle difference, change amount of reflected color, and survival amount of fluorine atom in the antifouling layer, Ikeda suggests or otherwise would have rendered obvious the structure and composition of the optical laminate of the instant claims to that of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ikeda further suggests or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that its antireflection film may be subject to glow discharge treatment (para 790, 833, 852), which matches the process applied to the optical laminate of the instant claims (see instant spec para 21).
Therefore, the antireflection film of Ikeda is deemed to possess these properties. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Ikeda teaches a polarizing plate or display (i.e., articles) comprising its antireflection films (para 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
With specific regard to the thickness of the antifouling layer, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., antifouling layer having a minimum thickness of 2.5 nm and an upper thickness range of 20 nm or less) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With specific regard to the Ikeda teaching only the transparent support being subjected to glow discharge treatment (para 790, 833, 852). This was a known technique for surface treatment prior to the time of invention, so Ikeda would have suggested would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that its antireflection film may be subject to glow discharge treatment, which matches the process applied to the optical laminate of the instant claims (see instant spec para 21).
Regarding the properties of water vapor transmission rate, hue change, change rate of surface roughness (and therein surface roughness), contact angle difference, change amount of reflected color, and survival amount of fluorine atom in the antifouling layer, Ikeda suggests or otherwise would have rendered obvious the structure and composition of the optical laminate of the instant claims to that of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ikeda further suggests or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that its antireflection film may be subject to glow discharge treatment (para 790, 833, 852), which matches the process applied to the optical laminate of the instant claims (see instant spec para 21).
Therefore, the antireflection film of Ikeda is deemed to possess these properties. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783