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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (2013/0215513).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an antireflection coating (Figure 2, 7, anti-reflective coating), wherein the antireflection coating comprises: one or more antireflection units (7, anti-reflective coating), wherein the plurality of antireflection units are sequentially stacked in a first direction (Figure 2's vertical direction), the first direction is a light-emitting direction of the antireflection coating ([0052] teaches the anti-reflective coating may be provided on the light incident side of a substrate and/or the other side; Examiner interprets the other side to be the light-emitting side), and the one or more antireflection units comprise a first antireflection unit (7, anti-reflective coating), wherein the first antireflection unit comprises a first thin film layer (l3, third layer) and a second thin film layer (l2, second layer), the second thin film layer and the first thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction (Figure 2), and a surface that is of the first thin film layer and that is away from the second thin film layer is a light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating (using Examiner's interpretation of the anti-reflective coating being on the other side, the top surface of Figure 2's l3, third layer); and the first thin film layer is of a porous structure ([0070]), the porous structure is configured to reduce a refractive index of the first thin film layer ([0009] teaches the refractive index can be reduced by introducing porosity into a coating), and the refractive index of the first thin film layer is less than a refractive index of the second thin film layer ([0070] teaches l3, third layer, is the most porous, and thus is interpreted to have a lower refractive index than l2, second layer).
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, wherein density of a hole that is of the first thin film layer and that is close to the light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating is greater than density of a hole that is of the first thin film layer and that is away from the light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating ([0070] teaches a layer can be graded with respect to pore shape, pore size, and/or porosity throughout the layer, and since the air side surface of l3, third layer, is the most porous, Examiner interprets the surface of l3, third layer, adjacent to l2, second layer, is less porous than the air side surface of l3, third layer).
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, wherein the first antireflection unit further comprises a third thin film layer (l1, first layer); and the second thin film layer is stacked on a surface of the third thin film layer (Figure 2, l2, second layer, is stacked on a surface of l1, first layer), and a refractive index of the third thin film layer is greater than the refractive index of the second thin film layer ([0070] teaches l1, first layer, is the most dense, thus considered to have a higher refractive index than l2, second layer).
Regarding claim 8, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, wherein a geometric thickness of the first thin film layer is 200 nm or less ([0210]).
Regarding claim 9, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, wherein the first thin film layer is made of a transparent material (at least [0209] teaches the anti-reflection coating has a peak transmission, thus considered to be made of a transparent material).
Regarding claim 11, Liang discloses a cover structure (Figure 2), comprising: a cover (1, substrate); and the antireflection coating according to claim 1 (7, anti-reflective coating), wherein the antireflection coating and the cover are stacked (Figure 2), and a light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating is further away from the cover ([0052] teaches the anti-reflective coating may be provided on the light incident side of a substrate and/or the other side; Examiner interprets the other side to be the light-emitting side; Figure 2, the top surface of 7, anti-reflective coating, is further away from 1, substrate).
Regarding claim 13, Liang discloses an antireflection coating (Figure 2), wherein the antireflection coating is of a porous structure ([0070]), and the porous structure is configured to reduce a refractive index of the antireflection coating ([0009] teaches the refractive index can be reduced by introducing porosity into a coating).
Regarding claim 14, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 13, wherein density of a hole that is of the antireflection coating and that is close to a light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating is greater than density of a hole that is of the antireflection coating and that is away from the light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating ([0070] teaches a layer can be graded with respect to pore shape, pore size, and/or porosity throughout the layer, and since the air side surface of l3, third layer, is the most porous, Examiner interprets the surface of l3, third layer, adjacent to l2, second layer, is less porous than the air side surface of l3, third layer).
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 13, wherein a geometric thickness of the antireflection coating is 200 nm or less ([0210]).
Regarding claim 17, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 13, wherein the antireflection coating is made of a transparent material (at least [0209] teaches the anti-reflection coating has a peak transmission, thus considered to be made of a transparent material).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Examiner provided machine translation of CN 103921487 A).
Regarding claim 21, Zhao discloses a method for manufacturing an antireflection coating ([0016]), comprising: forming a second thin film layer ([0017] teaches a barrier layer); sputtering a surface of the second thin film layer to form a first to-be-processed thin film layer ([0018] teaches a zinc oxide or zinc oxide doped film deposited on the isolation layer by magnetron sputtering), wherein the first to-be-processed thin film layer comprises at least a first acid-intolerant substance and a first acid-tolerant substance ([0018] teaches etching the surface of the zinc oxide or zinc oxide doped film with acid to form a textured surface of nano-micro composite pores, thus the corroded area is considered acid intolerant and the remaining area is considered acid tolerant); corroding the first to-be-processed thin film layer by using an acid solution, to form a first thin film layer of a porous structure ([0018]), wherein a hole in the porous structure is formed after the acid solution reacts with the first acid-intolerant substance ([0018] teaches pores formed from acid corrosion), the porous structure is configured to reduce a refractive index of the first thin film layer (at least [0005] teaches porosity lowers the refractive index of a film), and the refractive index of the first thin film layer is less than a refractive index of the second thin film layer (Examiner notes that the porous film has less refractive index than the non-porous film); and obtaining an antireflection coating (Figure 1), wherein a surface that is of the first thin film layer and that is away from the second thin film layer is a light-emitting surface of the antireflection coating (top surface of 4, visible light anti-reflection layer can be considered to be a light emitting surface).
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 3, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (2013/0215513) in view of Tsukada et al. (6,129,980).
Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a geometric thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Liang and Tsukada are related because both teach an antireflection coating.
Tsukada teaches an antireflection coating wherein a geometric thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number (col 20 lines 42-50 and 58-63 teach the equation when h or k are chosen to be 3, and in the claim, k is chosen to be 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Tsukada and provide wherein a geometric thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Doing so would allow for improved durability and low reflectance in a wide wavelength region.
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1+n.sub.2*d.sub.2=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, d.sub.2 is a geometric thickness of the second thin film layer, n.sub.2 is the refractive index of the second thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Liang and Tsukada are related because both teach an antireflection coating.
Tsukada teaches an antireflection coating wherein a thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1+n.sub.2*d.sub.2=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, d.sub.2 is a geometric thickness of the second thin film layer, n.sub.2 is the refractive index of the second thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number (col 20 lines 42-50 and 58-63 teach the equation when h and k are chosen to be 2, and in the claim, k is chosen to be 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Tsukada and provide wherein a thickness of the first thin film layer meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1+n.sub.2*d.sub.2=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the first thin film layer, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the first thin film layer, d.sub.2 is a geometric thickness of the second thin film layer, n.sub.2 is the refractive index of the second thin film layer, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Doing so would allow for improved durability and low reflectance in a wide wavelength region.
Regarding claim 15, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 13, but fails to teach wherein a geometric thickness of the antireflection coating meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the antireflection coating, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the antireflection coating, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Liang and Tsukada are related because both teach an antireflection coating.
Tsukada teaches an antireflection coating wherein a geometric thickness of the antireflection coating meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the antireflection coating, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the antireflection coating, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number (col 20 lines 42-50 and 58-63 teach the equation when h or k are chosen to be 3, and in the claim, k is chosen to be 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Tsukada and provide wherein a geometric thickness of the antireflection coating meets the following equation: n.sub.1*d.sub.1=(2k+1)λ.sub.0/4 wherein d.sub.1 is the geometric thickness of the antireflection coating, n.sub.1 is the refractive index of the antireflection coating, λ.sub.0 is a wavelength of light in the air, and k is a natural number. Doing so would allow for improved durability and low reflectance in a wide wavelength region.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (2013/0215513) in view of Tsukada et al. (6,129,980), as applied to claims 3 and 6 above, and further in view of Fujii (Examiner provided machine translation of JP 2007094150 A).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit, and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the second thin film layer and that is away from the first thin film layer; and the second antireflection unit comprises a third thin film layer and a fourth thin film layer, the fourth thin film layer and the third thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction, a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the third thin film layer, and the refractive index of the third thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the second thin film layer. The modified Liang and Fujii are related because each teach an antireflection coating.
Fujii teaches an antireflection coating wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit (Figure 1, 101, first layer, 102, second layer, 103, third layer), and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the second thin film layer and that is away from the first thin film layer (Figure 1, 103, third layer, is stacked on 104, fourth layer, away from the surface adjacent to 105, fifth layer); and the second antireflection unit comprises a third thin film layer (102, second layer) and a fourth thin film layer (103, third layer), the fourth thin film layer and the third thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction (Figure 1), a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the third thin film layer ([0020] teaches the refractive index of 103, third layer, is greater than the refractive index of 102, second layer), and the refractive index of the third thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the second thin film layer ([0020] teaches the refractive index of 102, second layer, can be chosen to be less than the refractive index of 104, fourth layer, because both layers have a range of 1.30 to 1.65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Fujii and provide wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit, and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the second thin film layer and that is away from the first thin film layer; and the second antireflection unit comprises a third thin film layer and a fourth thin film layer, the fourth thin film layer and the third thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction, a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the third thin film layer, and the refractive index of the third thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the second thin film layer. Doing so would allow for improved anti-reflectance to be observed by the antireflection coating.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit, and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the third thin film layer and that is away from the second thin film layer; and the second antireflection unit comprises a fourth thin film layer and a fifth thin film layer, the fifth thin film layer and the fourth thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction, a refractive index of the fifth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer, and the refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the third thin film layer. The modified Liang and Fujii are related because each teach an antireflection coating.
Fujii teaches an antireflection coating wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit (Figure 2, 201, first layer, 202, second layer, 203, third layer), and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the third thin film layer and that is away from the second thin film layer (Figure 2, 203, third layer, is stacked on 204, fourth layer, on a surface away from 205, fifth layer); and the second antireflection unit comprises a fourth thin film layer (202, second layer)and a fifth thin film layer (203, third layer), the fifth thin film layer and the fourth thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction (Figure 2), a refractive index of the fifth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer ([0022] teaches the refractive index of 203, third layer, is greater than the refractive index of 202, second layer), and the refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the third thin film layer ([0022] teaches the refractive index of 204, fourth layer, can be chosen to be less than the refractive index of 203, third layer, because both layers have a range of 1.30 to 1.65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Fujii and provide wherein the plurality of antireflection units further comprise a second antireflection unit, and the second antireflection unit is stacked on a surface that is of the third thin film layer and that is away from the second thin film layer; and the second antireflection unit comprises a fourth thin film layer and a fifth thin film layer, the fifth thin film layer and the fourth thin film layer are sequentially stacked in the first direction, a refractive index of the fifth thin film layer is greater than a refractive index of the fourth thin film layer, and the refractive index of the fourth thin film layer is less than the refractive index of the third thin film layer. Doing so would allow for improved anti-reflectance to be observed by the antireflection coating.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (2013/0215513) in view of Thothadri et al. (2020/0410208).
Regarding claim 10, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device. Liang and Thothadri are related because both teach an antireflection coating.
Thothadri teaches an antireflection coating wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device (at least [0061, 0162]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Thothadri and provide wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device. Doing so would allow for an improved antireflection film to be provided on a compact device.
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses the antireflection coating according to claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device.
Thothadri teaches an antireflection coating wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device (at least [0061, 0162]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Liang to incorporate the teachings of Thothadri and provide wherein the antireflection coating is applied to a foldable electronic device. Doing so would allow for an improved antireflection film to be provided on a compact device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (2013/0215513) in view of Moravec et al. (2004/0156983).
Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses the cover structure according to claim 11, but fails to teach further comprising a buffer layer, wherein the buffer layer is made of a high-surface-energy material; the buffer layer is stacked between the cover and the antireflection coating, and comprises a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other; and the first surface of the buffer layer is in contact with the antireflection coating, and the second surface of the buffer layer is in contact with a cover surface of the cover. Liang and Moravec are related because both teach a cover structure.
Moravec teaches a cover structure comprising a buffer layer ([0020] teaches a primary layer and hard coating layer act as buffer layers), wherein the buffer layer is made of a high-surface-energy material ([0020] teaches the primary layer and hard coating layer enhance the adhesion of the AR coating, thus considered to be made of a high surface energy material); the buffer layer is stacked between the cover and the antireflection coating ([0020] teaches the primary layer and hard coating layer are on bottom side of AR coating, thus considered to be between a cover layer that the AR coating attaches to and the AR coating), and comprises a first surface (surface of primary layer and hard coating layer that is adjacent to AR coating) and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other (surface of primary layer and hard coating layer that is opposite from AR coating); and the first surface of the buffer layer is in contact with the antireflection coating ([0020]), and the second surface of the buffer layer is in contact with a cover surface of the cover (at least [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshida (2020/0041694), Hao (2014/0022644), Liang (2013/0194668), Schulz (2013/0182329), Shibuya (2012/0251803), Inomata (2012/0189828), Ishida (2012/0162774), Oudard (2011/0151222), Cangemi (2009/0141358) disclose relevant antireflection coatings.
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