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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
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, 4-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et. al JP 2012137648 (hereinafter “JP 2012”)1 in view of Nakai et. al US 20160082688 (hereinafter “Nakai”).
Regarding claim 1, JP 2012 teaches an optical body comprising:
a base material (JP 2012 fig. 9 - 2);
a dye-containing resin layer (JP 2012 fig. 9 - 4, see also para. 0026) formed on the base material (JP 2012 fig. 9); and
an anti-reflection layer (JP 2012 fig. 9 - 6) formed on the resin layer (JP 2012 fig. 9), the anti-reflection layer (6) not containing dye and having a micro uneven structure (JP 2012 fig. 10 - 6a) with an uneven period less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light in at least one surface (JP 2012 para. 0053),
wherein average spectral transmittance of the optical body for light in a wavelength range of 420 to 680 nm is 60% or greater, and minimum spectral transmittance of the optical body for light in a wavelength range of 750 to 1400 nm is less than 60% (JP 2012 fig. 2 - shows the transmittance and absorptance of the cyanine dye in the light absorbing structure 4 with a high average transmittance over 60% from about 420 to 680 nm and a minimum dipping to 0% from 750 to 1400 nm due to high absorptivity).
JP 2012 does not specify wherein the anti-reflection layer has the micro uneven structure in both surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakai teaches wherein the anti-reflection layer (Nakai fig. 1 - 16, see also para. 0081) has the micro uneven structure in both surfaces (Nakai fig. 1 - shows 16 with the structure on both surfaces, see also para. 0313 and abstract) for the purpose of obtaining favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have micro uneven structure in both surfaces of the anti-reflection layer as taught by Nakai in the optical body of JP 2012 in order to have obtain favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083).
Regarding claim 4, JP 2012 and Nakai teach the optical body according to claim 1, and Nakai further teaches wherein thickness of the resin layer (Nakai fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0307 and 0310) is greater than or equal to 1 μm (Nakai para. 0107 – preferably 1 μm or greater).
Regarding claim 5, JP 2012 and Nakai teach the optical body according to claim 1, and Nakai further teaches wherein thickness of the anti-reflection layer is 0.2 to 1.0 μm (Nakai para. 0108 – preferably 1 μm).
Regarding claim 9, JP 2012 and Nakai teach an image sensor (JP 2012 para. 0018 – imaging optical unit) comprising the optical body according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above and JP 2012 para. 0018).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012 and Nakai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takihara et. al US 20130129977 (hereinafter “Takihara”).
Regarding claim 3, JP 2012 and Nakai teach the optical body according to claim 1.
JP 2012 and Nakai do not specify wherein storage elastic modulus of the resin layer is less than storage elastic modulus of the anti-reflection layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Takihara teaches setting a range for the storage elastic modulus of the resin layer (Takihara fig. 1 - 15) is less than the storage elastic modulus of the anti-reflection layer (Takihara fig. 1 – 12; para. 0059 – teaches a ratio of the storage modulus for 15 to the storage modulus for 12 between 0.003 and 0.08) for the purpose of improving scratch resistance and maintaining an antireflective property (Takihara para. 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an elastic storage modulus of the resin layer is less than the storage elastic modulus of the anti-reflection layer as taught by Takihara in the optical body of JP 2012 and Nakai in order to improve scratch resistance and maintain an antireflective property (Takihara para. 0059).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012 and Nakai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et. al US 20080055728 (hereinafter “Tanaka” of record).
Regarding claim 6, , JP 2012 and Nakai teach the optical body according to claim 1.
JP 2012 and Nakai do not specify
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches wherein a retention film (Tanaka fig. 5e – 8) is further formed on the anti-reflection layer (Tanaka fig. 5e – 5, shows 8 formed on 5) for the purpose of providing conductivity (Tanaka para. 0107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a retention film as taught by Tanaka in the optical body of JP 2012 and Nakai in order to provide conductivity (Tanaka para. 0107).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et. al US 20080055728 (hereinafter “Tanaka” of record) in view of Nakai et. al US 20160082688 (hereinafter “Nakai”).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches a manufacturing method of an optical body (Tanaka fig. 5e - 7), comprising the steps of:
making an anti-reflection layer (Tanaka fig. 5e - 5) not containing dye and having a micro uneven structure (Tanaka fig. 5e - 5) in a surface by curing a retention film (Tanaka fig. 5e - 8) while the retention film (8) is pressed against a curable resin (Tanka fig. 5e - 3), the retention film (8) having a micro uneven structure (shape of 5, see Tanaka fig. 5e which shows 8 and 5 together) with an uneven period less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light (Tanaka para. 0097 – a period of .25 μm which is less than a wavelength of visible light); and
making an optical body with the retention film (8) by, after a curable resin is applied to a base material, curing the obtained anti-reflection layer (5) while the anti-reflection layer (5) is pressed against the curable resin (8).
Tanaka does not teach a dye-containing curable resin, nor that the anti-reflection layer has the micro uneven structure in both sides.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakai teaches a dye-containing curable resin layer (Nakai fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0307 and 0310) and that the anti-reflection layer (Nakai fig. 1 - 16, see also para. 0081) has the micro uneven structure in both surfaces (Nakai fig. 1 - shows 16 with the structure on both surfaces, see also para. 0313 and abstract) for the purpose of obtaining favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have micro uneven structure in both surfaces of the anti-reflection layer as taught by Nakai in the optical body of JP 2012 in order to have obtain favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches a laminate (Tanaka fig. 5e - 7) comprising:
a retention film (Tanka fig. 5e - 8) having a micro uneven structure (Tanaka fig. 5e - 8 formed on 5, would have the micro uneven structure of 5) with an unevenness period less than or equal to a wavelength of visible light (Tanaka para. 0097 - a period of .25 μm which is less than a wavelength of visible light);
an anti-reflection layer (Tanaka fig. 5e - 5) having a micro uneven structure in at least one surface (Tanaka fig. 5e - 5 is a micro uneven structure), the micro uneven structure (5) being formed after shape of the micro uneven structure of the retention film (Tanaka fig. 5e - 8 is formed on 5, both have the shape); and
a resin layer (Tanaka fig. 5e - 3) formed on the anti-reflection layer (Tanaka fig. 5e - 3 is formed on 5, 5 is formed on 3).
Tanaka does not teach a dye-containing curable resin, nor that the anti-reflection layer has the micro uneven structure in both sides.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakai teaches a dye-containing curable resin layer (Nakai fig. 1 – 14, see also para. 0307 and 0310) and that the anti-reflection layer (Nakai fig. 1 - 16, see also para. 0081) has the micro uneven structure in both surfaces (Nakai fig. 1 - shows 16 with the structure on both surfaces, see also para. 0313 and abstract) for the purpose of obtaining favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have micro uneven structure in both surfaces of the anti-reflection layer as taught by Nakai in the optical body of JP 2012 in order to have obtain favorable abrasion resistance and adhesion property (Nakai para. 0083).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Machine translation of JP 2012137648 is included.