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
Withdrawn Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and clarifications in the response filed on May 11, 2026.
New Rejections
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 1-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (US 2008/0274352).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hao teaches a superstrate (optical film [0026]), comprising: a core body (light transmissive film 16 [0023]) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface and the second surface being opposite to each other (Fig. 3); an electrically conductive layer directly overlying the first surface of the core body 16 (antistatic primer 17 [0022], Fig. 3); and a capping layer (combination of high and low refractive index layer forms an antireflective film 18 [0024], Fig. 3) including a fluoropolymer ([0082], fluorinated … (meth)acrylate compounds may be employed In the preparation of the polymerizable low refractive index composition [0079]) directly overlying the electrically conductive layer 17 (Fig. 3), wherein the core body 16 is formed from glass or polymer ([0028]) which is electrically non-conductive and has an electrical conductivity that is within the claimed range of not greater than 10⁻¹⁰ S/m, as disclosed in Applicant’s specification (glass-based, an organic polymer [0043]); and the electrically conductive layer 17 is formed from sulfopolyester and conductive polymer (antistatic primers 4 and 5 [0109-0110]) being metal-free, and comprises an electrical conductivity of 10-1 S/m (2x10-7 m x 108 ohms/sq) (film surface resistance of 108 ohms/sq, Primers 4 and 5, Table 2 [0133]; layer thickness of 200 nm [0044]) = 2x10-7 m), which is within the claimed range of at least 10-4 S/m. Hao is silent regarding a UV transparency at 365 nm of at least 80% for both the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18.
However, Hao teaches that the capping layer 18 (combination of high and low refractive index layer forms an antireflective film 18 [0024], Fig. 3) is cured by UV light (UV cure [0087]) using a UV-A source ([0125]) which has a main wavelength of 365 nm.
Providing the superstrate comprising the core body 16, the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18, with a UV transparency at 365 nm of close to 100%, which is within the claimed range of at least 80%, allows a more uniform cure of the capping layer 18, when the UV light which has a main wavelength of 365 nm is able to irradiate the capping layer 18 from all sides (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided both the electrically conductive layer and the capping layer, of the superstrate of Hao, with a UV transparency at 365 nm which is within the claimed range of at least 80%, in order to obtain the desired improvement in uniform cure of the capping layer.
Regarding claims 2-5, Hao teaches that the electrically conductive layer 17 includes an electrically conductive polymer ([0045]) which includes poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (polyethylenedioxythiophene [0045]) which is a species of polythiophene.
Regarding claims 6-9, Hao teaches that the electrically conductive layer 17 further includes a polystyrene sulfonate dopant (doped with poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT:PSS) commercially available … under the trade designation “Baytron P” [0045] where the polystyrene sulfonic acid loses the labile acidic hydrogen to the polyethylenedioxythiophene, to form the corresponding polystyrene sulfonate anion).
Regarding claim 10, Hao teaches that electrically conductive layer 17 (antistatic primers 4 and 5 [0109-0110]) consists essentially of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (polyethylenedioxythiophene [0045]) and polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) (doped with poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT:PSS) commercially available … under the trade designation “Baytron P” [0045] where the polystyrene sulfonic acid loses the labile acidic hydrogen to the polyethylenedioxythiophene, to form the corresponding polystyrene sulfonate anion).
Regarding claims 13-14, Hao teaches that a thickness of the electrically conductive layer 17 is within a range of at least 40 nm and not greater than 200 nm ([0044]) which is within the claimed range of at least 40 nm and not greater than 1000 nm, or overlaps the claimed range of at least 50 nm and not greater 200 nm.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of De Young (US 2020028740).
Hao teaches the superstrate comprising the core body 16, the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18 including a fluoropolymer, as described above. Hao fails to teach that the capping layer is an amorphous layer and has a helium gas permeability of at least 10-8 cm3.cm/cm2.s.cmHg. Hao also fails to teach that the fluoropolymer of the capping layer 18 includes a structure of formula (1) of Applicant.
However, Hao teaches that the capping layer 18 including a fluoropolymer (combination of high and low refractive index layer forms an antireflective film 18 [0024], Fig. 3) is cured by UV light (UV cure [0087]).
Providing the superstrate comprising the core body 16, the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18, with a UV transparency, allows a more uniform cure of the capping layer 18, when the UV light is able to irradiate the capping layer 18 from all sides (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the capping layer, of the superstrate of Hao, with a UV transparency, in order to obtain the desired improvement in uniform cure of the capping layer.
In addition, Hao teaches that the fluoropolymer is a perfluoropolyether polymer ([0080]).
De Young teaches that in a superstrate comprising a layer which includes a fluoropolymer that is a perfluoropolyether polymer (210 [0040]), the perfluoropolyether polymer includes a structure of formula (1) of Applicant (Formula 1 [0039]), for the purpose of providing the desired UV transparency ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a fluoropolymer that includes a structure of formula (1) of Applicant, as the fluoropolymer of the capping layer of the superstrate of Hao, in order to obtain the desired UV transparency, as taught by De Young.
In addition, De Young teaches that the layer which includes the perfluoropolyether polymer which includes a structure of formula (1) of Applicant (Formula 1 [0039]) is an amorphous layer which has a helium gas permeability of greater than 10-8 cm3.cm/cm2.s.cmHg ([0047]) which is within the claimed range of at least 10-8 cm3.cm/cm2.s.cmHg, for the purpose of dissipating any trapped helium gas that is used during a planarizing process ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the capping layer including the fluoropolymer of Hao, as modified by De Young, as an amorphous layer which has a helium gas permeability that is within a range of at least 10-8 cm3.cm/cm2.s.cmHg, in order to dissipate any trapped helium gas that is used during a planarization process, as taught by DeYoung.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Matsumoto, WO-2021/020504-A1 (EP-4006592-B9 is used here as the English translation).
Regarding claims 15-16, Hao teaches the superstrate comprising the core body 16, the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18, as described above. Hao fails to teach that the capping layer 18 only consists of the low refractive index layer 20, such that a thickness of the capping layer 18 is a thickness of the low refractive index layer 20, which is within a range of 90 nm to 110 nm ([0061]) which is within the claimed range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm.
However, Matsumoto teaches that a variation of the superstrate (antireflection film 10 [0015], Fig. 1) can comprise a core body (substrate film 12 [0015]), an electrically conductive layer (hard coat layer 16 [0015] include … an antistatic agent [0022]) directly overlying the first surface of the cored body 12, and a capping layer that only consists of a low refractive index layer (low refractive-index layer 14 [0015], Fig. 1) directly overlying the electrically conductive layer 16 (Fig. 1), where the low refractive index layer has a thickness that is within a range of 80 nm to 120 nm ([0056]) which is within the claimed range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm, for the purpose of providing a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a variation of the superstrate of Hao, in which the superstrate comprises a core body, an electrically conductive layer directly overlying the first surface of the cored body, and a capping layer, which only consists of a low refractive index layer, directly overlying the electrically conductive layer, where the capping layer has a thickness that is within a range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm, in order to obtain a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate, as taught by Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 17, Hao fails to teach that the capping layer 18 only consists of the low refractive index layer 20, such that a thickness of the capping layer 18 is a thickness of the low refractive index layer 20, which is within a range of 90 nm to 110 nm ([0061]) which is within the claimed range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm.
However, Matsumoto teaches that a variation of the superstrate (antireflection film 10 [0015], Fig. 1) can comprise a core body (substrate film 12 [0015]), an electrically conductive layer (hard coat layer 16 [0015] include … an antistatic agent [0022]) directly overlying the first surface of the cored body 12, and a capping layer that only consists of a low refractive index layer (low refractive-index layer 14 [0015], Fig. 1) directly overlying the electrically conductive layer 16 (Fig. 1), where the low refractive index layer has a thickness that is within a range of 80 nm to 120 nm ([0056]) which is within the claimed range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm, for the purpose of providing a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a variation of the superstrate of Hao, in which the superstrate comprises a core body, an electrically conductive layer directly overlying the first surface of the cored body, and a capping layer, which only consists of a low refractive index layer, directly overlying the electrically conductive layer, where the capping layer has a thickness that is within a range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm, in order to obtain a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate, as taught by Matsumoto.
In addition, Hao teaches that a thickness of the electrically conductive layer 17 is within a range of at least 40 nm and not greater than 200 nm ([0044]).
Accordingly, a thickness ratio of a thickness of the electrically conductive layer 17 to a thickness of the capping layer 20 of the superstrate of modified Hao, is about 2:1 when the thickness of the electrically conductive layer 17 is 200 nm ([0044]) and the thickness of the capping layer 20 is within a range of 90 nm to 110 nm ([0061]), which is within the claimed range of from 1:1 to 30:1, for the purpose of providing a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate, as taught by Matsumoto.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14 above, and further in view of Shimotani (US 2009/0097882).
Hao teaches the superstrate comprising the core body 16, the electrically conductive layer 17 and the capping layer 18 including a fluoropolymer, as described above. In addition, Hao teaches that electrically conductive layer 17 (antistatic primers 4 and 5 [0109-0110]) consists essentially of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (polyethylenedioxythiophene [0045]) and polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) (doped with poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT:PSS) commercially available … under the trade designation “Baytron P” [0045] where the polystyrene sulfonic acid loses the labile acidic hydrogen to the polyethylenedioxythiophene, to form the corresponding polystyrene sulfonate anion). Hao is silent regarding an electrical conductivity of at least 14 S/m.
However, Shimotani teaches that the electrical conductivity of standard PEDOT:PSS is around 103 S/m (PEDOT/PSS [0084] commercially available under the trade designation “Agfa orgacon S-300 [0080]) which is within the claimed range of at least 14 S/m.
Therefore, it would have been routine optimization, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have adjusted the composition and processing conditions of the electrically conductive layer 17 consisting essentially of PEDOT:PSS, of the superstrate of Hao, in order to provide an electrical conductivity that is within a range of at least 14 S/m, as taught by Shimotani.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (US 2008/0274352) in view of Matsumoto, WO-2021/020504-A1 (EP-4006592-B9 is used here as the English translation).
Regarding claim 19, Hao teaches a method of forming a superstrate (optical film [0026]), comprising: providing a core body (light transmissive film 16 [0023]) having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface being opposite to the second surface (Fig. 3); applying on the first surface of the core body 15, a liquid layer of a coating composition (antistatic primer 17 [0023] applied using … dip coating … spin coating, and die coating [0059]), the coating composition including a solvent, an electrically conductive polymer ([0045]) and a dopant (doped with [0045]); solidifying the coating composition, wherein solidifying comprises removing the solvent (coated … cured and dried [0128]) to form an electrically conductive layer (antistatic primer 17 [0023], improve conductivity of the dried coating [0056]); applying a protective coating composition (low refractive index layer [0023] can be applied using … dip coating … spin coating, and die coating [0059] for antireflective [0020]) on the electrically conductive layer 17 to form a capping layer 20 (low refractive index layer 20 is typically a surface layer exposed to the environment [0023], Fig. 3), the protective coating composition (([0082], fluorinated … (meth)acrylate compounds may be employed In the preparation of the polymerizable low refractive index composition [0079]). Hao fails to teach that the protective coating composition including a fluoropolymer, is applied directly on the electrically conductive layer 17.
However, Matsumoto teaches that a variation of a method of forming a superstrate (antireflection film 10 [0015], Fig. 1) can comprise a providing a core body having a first surface and a second surface, the first surface being opposite to the second surface (substrate film 12 [0015], Fig. 1), an electrically conductive layer (hard coat layer 16 [0015] include … an antistatic agent [0022]) directly overlying the first surface of the cored body 12, and a capping layer that only consists of a low refractive index layer (low refractive-index layer 14 [0015], Fig. 1) directly overlying the electrically conductive layer 16 (Fig. 1), where the low refractive index layer 14 has a thickness that is within a range of 80 nm to 120 nm ([0056]) which is within the claimed range of at least 20 nm and not greater than 300 nm, or at least 50 nm and not greater 150 nm, for the purpose of providing a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have applied the protective coating composition including a fluoropolymer, directly on the electrically conductive layer to form the capping layer, in the method of forming a superstrate of Hao, in order to obtain a thinner, lighter weight and more economical superstrate, as taught by Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 20, Hao teaches that the conductive polymer and the dopant consist essentially of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (polyethylenedioxythiophene [0045]) and polystyrene sulfonate (PSS) (doped with poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDOT:PSS) commercially available … under the trade designation “Baytron P” [0045] where the polystyrene sulfonic acid loses the labile acidic hydrogen to the polyethylenedioxythiophene, to form the corresponding polystyrene sulfonate anion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new embodiment of Hao forming 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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights