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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 remain withdrawn without traverse from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hichiri et al. (WO 2019087963).
In ¶ 1-200 and figures 1-3, Hichiri et al. teach a film comprising
a base material substrate (layer 10 in figure 1);
hard layer, consistent with the present transition layer, on one side of the substrate (layer 12 in figure 1); and
an anti-reflection layer on the side of the hard coating layer way from the substrate (layer 11 in figure 1).
In ¶ 68, Hichiri et al. teach achieving interference reduction with the application of an easy adhesion layer between the substrate (10) and the hard coat layer (12), so that the easy adhesion layer has an intermediate refractive index that is higher than that of the substrate (10), and lower than the refractive index of the hard coat layer (12) on the other side of the easy adhesion layer. Therefore, the refractive index of the hard coat layer would be higher than that of the substrate.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the formula in claim 2, Hichiri et al. teach that the refractive index of the hard transition layer may be set to 1.45 to 1.58, while the refractive index of the antireflective layer is 1.20 to 1.40. When the reflective index of the antireflective layer is 1.25 and the refractive index of the hard transition layer is 1.56, it satisfies the formula n12 = n0 X n2. (see ¶ 48 and 51)
Regarding claim 4, Hichiri et al. teach the film thickness of the hard transition layer to be 3 to 15µm and the reflection index is 1.45 to 1.58, the hard transition layer of Hichiri et al. can also meet the condition of claim 4. Hichiri et al. (WO 2019087963).
Hichiri et al. teach wherein the transition coating layer comprises 1-10 parts of photo initiator, based on 100 % of the photopolymerized resin such as polyester acrylic resin, polyurethane acrylic resin, epoxy acrylic resin, with 10 to 50% of inorganic oxides such as silica particles, and various other additives, wherein the inorganic oxides particles is greater than or equal to 5 nm, and less than or equal to 25 nm.
Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hichiri et al. (WO 2019087963).
Although Hichiri et al. do not disclose that the transition layer is from 30 to 110 µm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to adjust the thickness of the transition layer to 30 to 110 µm as they already teach the layer to be in the micrometer range, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hichiri et al. (WO 2019087963) in view of Lou et al. (CN 104199128).
Hichiri et al. differ from the claimed invention in that they do not disclose the particle size of the inorganic oxide particles to be from 5 to 25 nm. However, it is known in the art to use nano-particles in such optical multilayer hardening film comprising transparent hardening layers from solidifying resins, initiator, nanometer particles, and solvent, wherein said resin is acrylic ester, as in Lou et al. (See the Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to use nanometer particles as in Lou et al., to obtain the hardening transition layer of Hichiri et al., motivated by a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In ¶ 68, Hichiri et al. teach the easy adhesion layer having an intermediate refractive index that is higher than that of the substrate (10), and lower than the refractive index of the hard coat layer (12). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Hichiri does disclose the limitation "wherein a refractive index of the transition (hard coat) layer is greater than a refractive index of the substrate".
Thus, the 102 and 103 rejections are valid.
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 KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
Prosecution Insights