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
The amendment filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2014092632 A, of record), in view of Yan et al. (5,948,481).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa discloses a black light shielding component (at least Figures 2a-2c), comprising a substrate (2, lens substrate) and a light shielding layer formed on at least one surface of the substrate (3, internal reflection prevention layer) directly or indirectly via an anchor layer configured to improve adhesion therebetween ([0020] teaches 3, internal reflection preventing layer, should have a thickness such that it provides good adhesion strength to 2, lens substrate), wherein the light shielding layer comprises black fine particles (3A, color material; [0022] teaches 3A, color material, may be made of carbon black), low refractive index nano particles (3Bb, low refractive index nanoparticles) and resin compositions (3Ba, resin layer).
Ichikawa fails to teach the low refractive index nano particles contain at least two selected from magnesium fluoride particles, calcium fluoride particles, lithium fluoride particles, calcium carbonate particles, and silicon oxide particles. Ichikawa and Yan are related because both teach a light shielding component.
Yan teaches a light shielding component wherein the low refractive index nano particles contain at least two selected from magnesium fluoride particles, calcium fluoride particles, lithium fluoride particles, calcium carbonate particles, and silicon oxide particles (at least col 2 lines 7-11 teach discrete particles incorporated into the antireflection coating are selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, magnesium fluoride, and mixtures thereof, thereby interpreted as a mixture of silicon dioxide and magnesium fluoride particles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Ichikawa to incorporate the teachings of Yan and provide the low refractive index nano particles contain at least two selected from magnesium fluoride particles, calcium fluoride particles, lithium fluoride particles, calcium carbonate particles, and silicon oxide particles. Doing so would allow for improved diffuse antireflection, which masks surface defects and provides a higher quality visual appearance.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, wherein the low refractive index nano particles contain magnesium fluoride particles and silicon oxide particles ([0026]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, wherein the low refractive index nano particles contain hollow nano particles ([0026]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 5, wherein the hollow nano particles contain hollow silica nano particles ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, wherein the average film thickness of the light shielding layer is 1 μm~100 μm ([0020]).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2014092632 A, of record) in view of Yan et al. (5,948,481), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (2020/0385501, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the black fine particles contain porous carbon. The modified Ichikawa and Tanaka are related because both teach a black light shielding component.
Tanaka discloses a black light shielding component wherein the black fine particles contain porous carbon ([0033, 0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ichikawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka and provide wherein the black fine particles contain porous carbon. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of reflectivity and efficient absorption of light.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size of the low refractive index nano particles is 1 nm~200 nm ([0026]).
The modified Ichikawa fails to teach wherein the average particle size of the black fine particles is 0.1 μm~50 μm, and the content of the low refractive index nano particles is 1 volume % to 50 volume % relative to the total amount of the black fine particles and the low refractive index nano particles. The modified Ichikawa and Tanaka are related because both teach a black light shielding component.
Tanaka teaches a black light shielding component wherein the average particle size of the black fine particles is 0.1 μm~50 μm ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ichikawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka and provide wherein the average particle size of the black fine particles is 0.1 μm~50 μm. Doing so would allow for improved reduction of reflectivity and efficient absorption of light.
Although the modified Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the content of the low refractive index nano particles is 1 volume % to 50 volume % relative to the total amount of the black fine particles and the low refractive index nano particles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the content of the low refractive index nano particles to be between 1 to 50 volume % relative to the total amount of the black fine particles and the low refractive index nano particles, 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 (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for reduced refractive index thereby lowering the reflectivity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2014092632 A, of record) in view of Yan et al. (5,948,481).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sum of the contents of the black fine particles and low refractive index nano particles in the light shielding layer is 50%~95% relative to the overall volume of the light shielding layer.
Although Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the sum of the contents of the black fine particles and low refractive index nano particles in the light shielding layer is 50%~95% relative to the overall volume of the light shielding layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the sum of the contents of the black fine particles and low refractive index nano particles in the light shielding layer to be 50%~95% relative to the overall volume of the light shielding layer, 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 (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Doing so would allow for reduced refractive index thereby lowering the reflectivity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2014092632 A, of record) in view of Yan et al. (5,948,481), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Toshima (2014/016203, of record) in view of Tanaka (2020/0385501, of record).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ichikawa discloses the black light shielding component according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the glossiness of the surface of the black light shielding component on which the light shielding layer is formed relative to the incident light with an incidence angle of 60° is 1% or less, and the L value is 10 or less. The modified Ichikawa and Toshima are related because both teach a black light shielding component.
Toshima teaches a black light shielding component wherein the glossiness of the surface of the black light shielding component on which the light shielding layer is formed relative to the incident light with an incidence angle of 60° is 1% or less (Table 2, G60, at least Example 1-1; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ichikawa to incorporate the teachings of Toshima and provide wherein the glossiness of the surface of the black light shielding component on which the light shielding layer is formed relative to the incident light with an incidence angle of 60° is 1% or less. Doing so would allow for a full delustering effect to be imparted on the article over a multitude of incident angles.
The modified Ichikawa fails to explicitly teach the L value to be 10 or less. The modified Ichikawa and Toshima are related because each teach a black light shielding component.
Toshima teaches a black light shielding component wherein the L value is 10 or less (at least Table 1-2, Examples 5, 8, 9, 16, 17; [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Ichikawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka and provide the L value to be 10 or less. Doing so would allow for a high jet black property with decreased reflectivity.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights