DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110217541 to Shimano et al. in view of JP 2018-173662 A (Furi Gen).
Re claims 1-4, 7-13, and 19-20, Shimano et al. teaches Fig. 1 and associated text a
Shimano et al. teaches Fig. 1 and associated text a hard coat, substrate base, cured product of cycloolefin polymer [95] and [145-146] of meth acryloyloxy group (same as applicant’s [90-95, 145-146] for ensuring a cured product and no cracking [217]. Inorganic particles are taught [15], Shimano (per claim 2).
See [210-222], Shimano – PET and cycloolefin structure (per claim 8). Re claims 19-20, see [210, 221-222]). Re claim 21, see [224] urethane acrylate.
All properties not explicit (i.e. peak area ratio…) are inherent given the same materials and structure used.
Further to product by process limitations (per claims 9 and 11) of before heat treatment and after curing, these are process limitations in a product claim and not germane to patentability.
Further re claim 1, Shimano doesn’t teach amorphous inorganic fine particles on each surface as claimed.
Furi Gen teaches fumed silica on a side (see under Inorganic fine particles heading, pp. 9-11) to aid in excellent blackness and anti-glare properties.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inorganic skin film of Shiamo and incorporated Furi Gen’s amorphous inorganic fine particles on each side of the base film for excellent blackness and anti-glare properties. The duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. Providing additional clay-polymer composite barrier coatings would have achieved expected results such as providing more barrier properties. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378,380 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 5-6, 14-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110217541 to Shimano et al. in view of JP 2018-173662 A (Furi Gen) and further in view of EP 2498130 A2 Shitabatake.
Shimano essentially teaches the claimed invention.
Re claims 5-6 and 14-18, Shimano doesn’t teach the exact ranges but are overlapping. See [481], See Shimano – overlapping ranges (per claim 5). See [50-54], Shimano – overlapping ranges (per claims 6 and 14). Re claims 15-18, see [50, 57], Shimano overlapping ranges.
Note that overlapping ranges have this application: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference effecting functionality because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Re claims 22-23, Shimano doesn’t teach the materials as claimed but teaches silica, [224] urethane acrylate and [90] methacrylol.
Shitabatake discloses a similar curable composition [10] of excellent pattern with excellent heat/cold shock resistance having the [23] same (meth)acryloyl, amorphous [235, 237-238] silica for good profile, and [257], [261] elastomer urethane and acrylic blend is within the teaching for improved heat resistance [256].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date time the invention was made to have selected only the materials of Shimano in the similar cured composition of Shimano for at least excellent patterns and shock resistance.
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
US 20180361719 to Kikuchi teaches a hard coat [153] where radically polymerizable groups include (meth)acryloyloxy and vinyl, of which (meth)acryloyloxy is generally employed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note the spherical silica of Shimano doesn’t teach away from the amorophous silicia teaching of the new reference. See action above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights