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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that modifying Kensuke in a manner to satisfy claim 1 to have protruding deformed fibers would impair the intended antireflective function of Kensuke. 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 examiner merely relies on Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) for the teaching of deformed fibers. 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. The applicant should note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject mater but simply what the references make obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman, 165 USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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 deformed fibers. Tanaka et al. (figures 1-2) teaches deformed fibers. 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.
Claims 37-38 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 Ueda et al. (US 2013/0141792).
Regarding claim 37, Kensuke et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kensuke et al. is silent regarding the height difference. Ueda et al. (figure 3H) teaches wherein a height from the front surface of the base material to the protruding portion (26) in a portion where the protrusion portion is provided is different from a height from the front surface of the base material to the surface of the resin portion (22) in a portion where the protrusion portion is not provided (upper and lower portions of the base material 10). 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 optical member as taught by Ueda et al. in order to achieve an optical member having a maintained initial gloss value.
Regarding claim 38, Kensuke et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kensuke et al. is silent regarding the height difference. Ueda et al. (figure 3H) teaches wherein a height from the front surface of the base material to the protruding portion in a portion (26) where the protrusion portion is provided is greater than a height from the front surface of the base material to the surface of the resin portion (22) in a portion where the protrusion portion is not provided (upper and lower portions of the base material 10). 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 optical member as taught by Ueda et al. in order to achieve an optical member having a maintained initial gloss value.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 571-272-9791. 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