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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kensuke et al. does not disclose the limitation as presented in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kensuke et al. (figures 1-2b) discloses an optical member as claimed including wherein at least one of the plurality of fibers of the antireflection film includes a protruding portion (12; figure 2b), on a surface of the resin portion that is on an opposite side of a side of the base material (upper surface of the film 2 as shown in figure 1), wherein the front surface of the base material includes a protrusion portion (3), wherein the protruding portion (12; figure 2b) is provided above the protrusion portion (2 is provided above 3; figure 1), and wherein at least one of the plurality of the fibers is in contact with the protrusion portion (3). The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention IA2 (figures 1A-1B and 8), including claims 1 and 3-11, in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The applicant argues that the features of claim 5 should be included in the elected species. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species (species M; figure 19D). Therefore, only claims 1, 3-4, 6-11 are pending for examination. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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, 3-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensuke et al. (JP 2016-95422) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2020-008843).
Regarding claim 1, Kensuke et al. (figures 1-2b) discloses an optical member comprising:
a base material (1) having a front surface; and
an antireflection film (2) provided on the front surface of the base material and including a resin portion and a plurality of fibers (11 and 12; the metal fiber 11 may be a layer in which contacts are formed in the layer 12 made of a resin; see at least page 5, 3rd and 4th paragraphs; figure 2b) bound to the resin portion,
wherein at least one of the plurality of fibers of the antireflection film includes a protruding portion (12; figure 2b), on a surface of the resin portion that is on an opposite side of a side of the base material (upper surface of the film 2 as shown in figure 1),
wherein the front surface of the base material includes a protrusion portion (3),
wherein the protruding portion (12; figure 2b) is provided above the protrusion portion (2 is provided above 3; figure 1), and
wherein at least one of the plurality of the fibers is in contact with the protrusion portion (3).
Kensuke et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kensuke et al. is silent regarding a deformed fiber. Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) teaches a deformed fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antireflection film as taught by Tanaka et al. in order to reduce the reflectivity by absorbing light rays by selecting the material of the fine particles so that the refractive index of the resin and the refractive index of the protruding fine particles match.
Regarding claim 3, Kensuke et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the front surface of the base material is an embossed surface formed by emboss processing.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 4, Kensuke et al. (figures 1-2) as modified by Tanaka et al. teaches
wherein the front surface of the base material includes a recess portion (2-3; figure 3),
wherein the deformed fiber (11-12) is provided above the recess portion, and
wherein a number of deformed fibers provided above the protrusion portion is greater than a number of deformed fibers provided above the recess portion (the area of the deformed fibers above the protrusion portion is bigger than the area of the deformed fibers above the recess portion).
Regarding claim 8, Kensuke et al. (figures 1-2) as modified by Tanaka et al. teaches wherein a thickness of at least one of the deformed fibers is smaller than a length of the protrusion portion.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein each of the plurality of the deformed fibers includes a core portion and a plurality of leg portions extending from the core portion, and a length of the leg portions falls within a range from 5 μm to 20 μm (6.25 μm; see at least page 8, 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein at least one of the leg portions of the plurality of the deformed fibers protrudes from the surface of the resin portion.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the base material includes aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy (see at least page 5, the last 3 paragraphs).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensuke et al. in view of Tanaka et al.; further in view of Kenichi et al. (WO 2012-117881).
Regarding claim 6, Kensuke et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kensuke et al. is silent regarding wherein a thickness of at least one of the deformed fibers is larger than a height of the protrusion portion. Kenichi et al. (figure 3A) teaches wherein a thickness of at least one of the deformed fibers is larger than a height of the protrusion portion (26 and 20; figure 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antireflection film as taught by Kenichi et al. in order to reduce the glossiness of the molded body.
Regarding claim 7, Kensuke et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kensuke et al. is silent regarding wherein a length of at least one of the deformed fibers is larger than a height of the protrusion portion. Kenichi et al. (figure 3A) teaches wherein a length of at least one of the deformed fibers is larger than a height of the protrusion portion (26 and 20; figure 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antireflection film as taught by Kenichi et al. in order to reduce the glossiness of the molded body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights