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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-33 are pending. Claims 16-29, 32 and 33 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15, 30 and 31 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15, 30 and 31 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-29, 32 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al. (WO 2019/235160, of which reference is made to the English translation provided by Applicant).
I. Regarding claims 12, 14 and 15, Hasebe teaches a method of producing a laminate (abstract) comprising: providing an acrylic-based resin film (page 4); and a hard coating layer forming step of irradiating a urethane acrylate resin layer applied on the acrylic-based resin film with an active energy ray to cure the urethane acrylate resin layer (middle of page 22). Hasebe teaches that the acrylic-based resin film is obtained by molding an acrylic resin composition (middle of page 22) that contains a thermoplastic acrylic polymer (page 4) and polymer particles containing a crosslinked elastomer (top of page 6); wherein the thermoplastic acrylic polymer constituted by 50-100% by mass of a methyl methacrylate unit and 0-50% of another structural unit (top of page 5), and the crosslinked elastomer contains 50-100% of an acrylic ester unit (top of page 6) and the polymer particles are graft copolymer particles containing the crosslinked elastomer and a graft polymer layer which is located closer to a surface layer than the crosslinked elastomer (top of page 10). Hasebe fails to teach the acrylic-based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of not less than 170% and the laminate having a crack elongation of not less than 80%.
However, Hasebe teaches the acrylic based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of 40% or more (bottom of page 4) and the laminate having a crack elongation of 20% or more (abstract). Hasebe teaches ranges for the breaking elongation and crack elongation which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Hasebe makes obvious claims 12, 14 and 15.
II. Regarding claim 13, Hasebe makes obvious all the limitations of claim 12 (see above), but fails to teach a Δhaze as claimed. However, Hasebe teaches optimizing the functional films and laminate to yield a low haze (middle of page 3), and the haze will alter the final aesthetic appearance and transparency of the resulting laminate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for Δhaze through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Hayashi et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0329297).
I. Regarding claims 1-4 and 10, Hasebe teaches a method of producing a laminate (abstract) comprising: providing an acrylic-based resin film (page 4); a hard coating layer forming step of irradiating a urethane acrylate resin layer applied on the acrylic-based resin film with an active energy ray to cure the urethane acrylate resin layer (middle of page 22), where the hard coat layer may or may not include particles (page 16); and a low-refractive index layer forming step of applying an acrylate-based resin that may include hollow silica fine particles (top of page 18) and irradiating with an active energy ray for curing (page 22). Hasebe teaches that the acrylic-based resin film is obtained by molding an acrylic resin composition (middle of page 22) that contains a thermoplastic acrylic polymer (page 4) and polymer particles containing a crosslinked elastomer (top of page 6); wherein the thermoplastic acrylic polymer constituted by 50-100% by mass of a methyl methacrylate unit and 0-50% of another structural unit (top of page 5), and the crosslinked elastomer contains 50-100% of an acrylic ester unit (top of page 6) and the polymer particles are graft copolymer particles containing the crosslinked elastomer and a graft polymer layer which is located closer to a surface layer than the crosslinked elastomer (top of page 10). Hasebe fails to teach the acrylic-based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of not less than 170%, the laminate having a crack elongation of not less than 80%, and the hollow silica particles having a size less than 100 nm and contained in an amount of not less than 40% and preparing the low refractive index by adding a solvent with a boiling point as claimed.
First, Hasebe teaches the acrylic based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of 40% or more (bottom of page 4) and the laminate having a crack elongation of 20% or more (abstract). Hasebe teaches ranges for the breaking elongation and crack elongation which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Second, Hayashi teaches a low refractive index layer prepared from a composition including an acrylate-based resin (abstract) and hollow fine silica particles with a particles size of 40-80 nm (abstract) in an amount overlapping the claimed range (abstract) prepared by adding a solvent with a boiling point in the range as claimed to the particles (claim 6 and note that propylene glycol monomethyl ether has a boiling point of 120 ºC). 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 Hasebe’s process by utilizing Hayashi’s low refractive index composition including hollow silica fine particles in an amount as claimed in place of Hasebe’s low refractive index composition. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Hayashi teaches that their low refractive index layer exhibits excellent antireflection performance and antifouling performance (0154).
II. Regarding claim 9, Hasebe in view of Hayashi make obvious claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach the cumulative light amount used in the irradiation with the active energy ray. However, the amount of light used will need to be adjusted based on the particular urethane acrylate used, the curing catalyst used and the degree of curing desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 11, Hasebe in view of Hayashi make obvious all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach a Δhaze as claimed. However, Hasebe in view of Hayashi teach optimizing the functional films and laminate to yield a low haze (see Hasebe in middle of page 3), and haze alters the final aesthetic appearance and transparency of the resulting laminate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for Δhaze through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
3. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Hayashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tilley (EP 0505737).
Regarding claims 5-7, Hasebe in view of Hayashi teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see above), but fail to teach the particles in the hard coat layer being silica, wherein a portion of the particles have a reactive functional group that is reactive with the urethane acrylate resin.
However, Tilley teaches the inclusion of methacrylate surface functionalized silica particles in UV curable urethane acrylate mixtures (abstract) as a hard coating (0002 and 0026). 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 Hasebe in view of Hayashi’s process by including methacrylate functionalized silica particles as the particles in Hasebe in view of Hayashi’s urethane acrylate hard coating. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the silica provides wide-ranging resistance to environmental extremes (see Tilley at 0026) and the use of a functionalized silica will prevent the silica from migrating and being removed from the hard coat over time as it will be reacted and covalently bonded into the hard coating layer.
4. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Hayashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (“Effect of polymer particles on the light scattering properties of UV cured antiglare hard coating”).
Regarding claim 8, Hasebe in view of Hayashi make obvious all the limitations of claim 4 including a laminated film without particles having a crack elongation as claimed (see above), the laminate having a pencil hardness of not less than H (top of page 5) and a crack elongation as claimed (see above), but fail to teach the particles present in an amount of 2-5 wt%, the haze %, and the thickness of the hard coat is less than the particle size of the dispersed particles.
First, the weight percentage of the particles in the hard coat is a result-effective variable as adjusting the amount of particles will alter the scratch resistance and refractive index (see Hayashi at 0050). Additionally, adjusting haze alters the final aesthetic appearance and transparency of the resulting laminate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for haze and amount of particles in the hard coat through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Second, Chang teaches preparing a hard coat using particles with a particle size that is greater than the coating thickness (See Table 1, Formulation 5 and Section 3.1). 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 Hasebe in view of Hayashi’s process by having the equation that thickness of the hard coat is less than the dispersed particle size of the particles. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Chang teaches that adjusting this parameter allows for controlling the gloss and haze of the resultant hard coating layer (see Chang at Table 1).
5. Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Hayashi and Chang.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Hasebe teaches a method of producing a laminate (abstract) comprising: providing an acrylic-based resin film (page 4); a hard coating layer forming step of irradiating a urethane acrylate resin layer applied on the acrylic-based resin film with an active energy ray to cure the urethane acrylate resin layer (middle of page 22), where the hard coat layer may or may not include particles (page 16); and a low-refractive index layer forming step of applying an acrylate-based resin that may include hollow silica fine particles (top of page 18) and irradiating with an active energy ray for curing (page 22). Hasebe teaches that the acrylic-based resin film is obtained by molding an acrylic resin composition (middle of page 22) that contains a thermoplastic acrylic polymer (page 4) and polymer particles containing a crosslinked elastomer (top of page 6); wherein the thermoplastic acrylic polymer constituted by 50-100% by mass of a methyl methacrylate unit and 0-50% of another structural unit (top of page 5), and the crosslinked elastomer contains 50-100% of an acrylic ester unit (top of page 6) and the polymer particles are graft copolymer particles containing the crosslinked elastomer and a graft polymer layer which is located closer to a surface layer than the crosslinked elastomer (top of page 10). Further, Hasebe teaches the laminate having a hardness of not less than H (top of page 5). Hasebe fails to teach the acrylic-based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of not less than 170%, the laminate having a crack elongation of not less than 170%, the haze of not less than 3% and Δhaze is less than 8%, and the particles contained in an amount as claimed and satisfying the equation that the particle size is greater than or equal to the coating thickness.
First, Hayashi makes clear that the amount of particles in a hard coating layer is a result-effective variable as adjusting the amount of particles will alter the scratch resistance and refractive index (see Hayashi at 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for amount of particles in the hard coat through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Second, Hasebe teaches the acrylic based resin film having a tensile breaking elongation of 40% or more (bottom of page 4), the laminate having a crack elongation of 20% or more (abstract). Hasebe teaches ranges for the breaking elongation and crack elongation which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Third, the haze parameters will alter the final aesthetic appearance and transparency of the resulting laminate and can be controlled by optimizing the components and amounts in the laminate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for haze and Δhaze through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Finally, Chang teaches preparing a hard coat using particles with a particle size that is greater than the coating thickness (See Table 1, Formulation 5 and Section 3.1). 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 Hasebe’s process by having the equation that thickness of the hard coat is less than the dispersed particle size of the particles. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Chang teaches that adjusting this parameter allows for controlling the gloss and haze of the resultant hard coating layer (see Chang at Table 1).
Conclusion
Claims 1-33 are pending.
Claims 16-29, 32 and 33 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-15, 30 and 31 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
February 25, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717