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 .
The Office Action is in response to the application filed January 22, 2024.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A reaction curable composition comprising:
a reactive component (A); and
a filler (B),
the filler (B) containing an antireflection filler (B1),
the antireflection filler (B1) having an average particle size of greater than or equal to 0.8 pm and less than or equal to 10 pm, particles of the antireflection filler (B1) each having a surface having a plurality of projections,
a mean diameter of the plurality of projections being greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is missing y-axis labels, and Fig. 6 is blurry, and the scale bar is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takabayashi (WO 2018/070301 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘301”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 6, Takabayashi ‘301 teaches an anti-reflective material comprising a cured product of a resin composition [Example 3; Claim 1], corresponding to the reaction curable composition of Claim 1, comprising:
Epoxy resin [Example 3; Table 1; Claim 1], corresponding to a reactive component (A) of Claim 1; and thereby reading on the epoxy compound of Claim 3;
porous filler, such as Sunsphere H-32 and Sunsphere H-52, that forms an uneven surface on the cured product that suppresses reflection [Example 3; Table 1; Claim 1; ¶ 0037], corresponding to the filler (B) containing an antireflection filler (B1) of Claim 1; wherein the pores of the porous filler correspond to the plurality of projections of Claim 1.
AGSI teaches the Sunsphere H-52 of Takabayashi ‘301 comprises a porous filler [note projection-like protrusions on the surface of the porous filler on Page 3, Electron Photomicrographs of Sunsphere H-32] with:
a mean particle diameter of 5 µm [Table: Multiporous H Series], corresponding to the average particle size of greater than or equal to 0.8 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm of Claim 1;
a pore diameter of 250 nm [Table: Multiporous H Series], corresponding to the mean diameter of projections being greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm of Claim 1; and
a refractive index of 1.45 [Table: General Characteristics], which reads on a refractive index of the antireflection filler (B1) is less than or equal to 1.7 of Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches:
curing agent [Claim 1], corresponding to the curing agent (A2) of Claim 4;
polymerization initiator [¶ 0085-0087], corresponding to the initiator (C) of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches:
porous filler [¶ 0158], corresponding to the core of Claims 7; and
surface treatment of the porous filler with silicones [¶ 0158], corresponding to the shell covering the core of Claim 7, and the plurality of projections on a surface of the shell of Claim 7.
Regrading Claim 9, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches 4-40% by weight of porous filler, such as Sunsphere H-52, relative to the total amount of anti-reflective material [Example 3; Table 1; Claim 1; ¶ 0037].
AGSI teaches the specific gravity of Sunsphere H-52 is 2.14-2.18 [Table: General Characteristics].
Thus, porous filler of Takabayashi ‘301 would be equivalent to 2-20% volume, which corresponds to a percentage of the filler (B) relative to the reaction curable composition is greater than or equal to 10 volume % of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches:
4-40 wt. % porous filler relative to the total amount of the anti-reflective material [Claim 1], which is equivalent to approximately 4.1-67 parts by mass porous filler relative to the epoxy compound (
4
p
a
r
t
s
f
i
l
l
e
r
96
p
a
r
t
s
e
p
o
x
y
=
4.2
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
;
40
p
a
r
t
s
f
i
l
l
e
r
60
p
a
r
t
s
e
p
o
x
y
=
67
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
), corresponding to an amount of the antireflection filler (B1) relative to 100 parts by mass of the reactive component (A) is greater than or equal to 5 parts by mass and less than or equal to 82 parts by mass of Claim 10.
Regarding Claims 11-13, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches:
5% by weight or less of additives, such as colorants and pigments, relative to the total amount of the resin composition [¶ 0118], which is equivalent to greater than 5.3 parts by mass relative to the epoxy resin (
5
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
l
o
r
a
n
t
95
p
a
r
t
s
e
p
o
x
y
m
a
x
.
≥
5.3
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
), corresponding to the coloring material (D) of Claim 11; thereby reading on the dye of Claim 12; and corresponding to 0 parts by mass and less than or equal to 10 parts by mass of the coloring material (D) relative to 100 parts by mass of the reactive component of Claim 13.
Regarding Claims 18-19, Takabayashi ‘301 further teaches:
the anti-reflection material does not require the use of solvents [¶ 0122-0123], thereby reading on the reaction curable composition contains no solvents of Claim 18; and
use of the anti-reflection material as an adhesive [¶ 0125], corresponding to wherein the reaction curable composition is an adhesive of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, “for underfill material production” is an intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takabayashi (WO 2017/122691 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘691”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Regarding Claims 1, 3 and 6, Takabayashi ‘691 teaches an anti-reflective material comprising a curable resin layer [Claims 1, 5], corresponding to the reaction curable composition of Claim 1, comprising:
a curable compound such as epoxy resin [Example 3; Table 1; Claims 5, 6], corresponding to the reactive component (A) of Claim 1; and thereby reading on the reactive compound (A1) contains an epoxy compound of Claim 3;
porous filler, such as Sunsphere H-32 and Sunsphere H-52 [Example 3; Table 1; Claim 1; Page 15, ¶ 2], corresponding to the filler (B) of Claim 1; and
wherein the porous filler forms irregularities on the surface to suppress reflection [Claim 1], corresponding to the antireflection filler (B1) of Claim 1; and wherein the pores of the porous filler correspond to the plurality of projections of Claim 1.
AGSI teaches the Sunsphere H-52 of Takabayashi ‘691 comprises a porous filler [note projection-like protrusions on the surface of the porous filler on Page 3, Electron Photomicrographs of Sunsphere H-32] with:
a mean particle diameter of 5 µm [Table: Multiporous H Series], corresponding to the average particle size of greater than or equal to 0.8 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm of Claim 1;
a pore diameter of 250 nm [Table: Multiporous H Series], corresponding to the mean diameter of projections being greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm of Claim 1; and
a refractive index of 1.45 [Table: General Characteristics], which reads on a refractive index of the antireflection filler (B1) is less than or equal to 1.7 of Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Takabayashi ‘691 further teaches:
curing agents that cure the curable epoxy resin [Page 33, ¶ 2-3], corresponding to a curing agent (A2) which reacts with the reactive compound (A1) of Claim 4; and
polymerization initiators [Page 39, ¶ 2-3], corresponding to the initiator (C) of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9, Takabayashi ‘691 further teaches 4-40% by weight of porous filler, such as Sunsphere H-52, relative to the total amount of anti-reflective material [Claim 1].
AGSI teaches the specific gravity of Sunsphere H-52 is 2.14-2.18 [Table: General Characteristics].
Thus, porous filler of Takabayashi ‘691 would be equivalent to 2-20% volume, which corresponds to a percentage of the filler (B) relative to the reaction curable composition is greater than or equal to 10 volume % of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Takabayashi ‘691 further teaches:
4-40 wt. % porous filler relative to the total amount of the anti-reflective material [Claim 1], which is equivalent to 4.1-67 parts by mass porous filler relative to the epoxy compound (
4
p
a
r
t
s
f
i
l
l
e
r
96
p
a
r
t
s
e
p
o
x
y
=
4.2
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
;
40
p
a
r
t
s
f
i
l
l
e
r
60
p
a
r
t
s
e
p
o
x
y
=
67
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
), corresponding to an amount of the antireflection filler (B1) relative to 100 parts by mass of the reactive component (A) is greater than or equal to 5 parts by mass and less than or equal to 82 parts by mass of Claim 10.
Regarding Claims 18-19, Takabayashi ‘691 further teaches:
the anti-reflection material does not require the use of solvents [Page 70, ¶ 2], thereby reading on the reaction curable composition contains no solvents of Claim 18;
use of the anti-reflection material as an adhesive [Page 72, ¶ 2], corresponding to wherein the reaction curable composition is an adhesive of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, “for underfill material production” is an intended use. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (WO 2021/106877A1; cited in the IDS submitted on 01/22/2024; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Yamamoto”) as evidenced by Nikko Rika Co. (“Silicone powder”; hereafter as “Nikko Rika”).
Regarding Claims 1, 7-8, Yamamoto teaches an insulating coating comprising resin [Examples 12-13], which corresponds to the reaction curable composition of Claim 1, comprising:
Polyimide resin [Examples 12-13], corresponding to the reactive component (A) of Claim 1; and
Silcrusta-MK03 particles comprising a cross-linked polymethyl methacrylate core and polymethylsilsesquioxane shell [Examples 12-13].
Nikko Rika teaches the Silcrusta MK03 of Takabayashi ‘301 is the same as the Silcrusta MKN03 which the instant Specification discloses as an antireflection filler [Specification; ¶ 0063] thereby corresponding to the filler (B) containing an antireflection filler (B1) of Claim 1, corresponding to wherein each of the particles of the antireflection filler (B1) is a core shell-type particle including a core and a shell covering the core and has the plurality of projections on a surface of the shell of Claim 7; and wherein the core contains an acrylic resin, and the shell and each of the projections contain silicone of Claim 8.
Nikko Rika also teaches Silcrusta MK03 comprises:
a mean particle diameter of 3 µm [Table: Product Details List], corresponding to the average particle size of greater than or equal to 0.8 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm of Claim 1;
raspberry-like particles [¶ 1; note projection-like protrusions on the surface of the Silcrusta MK03 particles on Page 1], thereby corresponding to particles of the antireflection filler (B1) each having a surface having a plurality of projections of Claim 1.
The instant Specification discloses the projection diameter of the Silcrusta MK03 particles to be approximately 0.2-0.5 µm [Fig. 1], which is equivalent to 200-500 nm, thereby corresponding to a mean diameter of the plurality of projections being greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3-4, 9, and 11-12, Yamamoto further teaches:
Epoxy resin [¶ 0018], thereby reading on the epoxy resin of Claim 3;
Crosslinking agents [¶ 0027], corresponding to the curing agent of Claim 4;
20% by volume of Silcrusta MK03 [Examples 12-13], corresponding to wherein a percentage of the filler (B) relative to the reaction curable composition is greater than or equal to 10 volume % of Claim 9;
Dyes [¶ 0027], corresponding to the coloring material of Claim 11, and thereby reading on the dye of Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 14-17 rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the- alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takabayashi (WO 2018/070301 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘301”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Takabayashi ‘301 teaches the reactive component and antireflection porous filler of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 14-17, however, Takabayashi ‘301 does not explicitly teach an average specular reflectance, measured by using an integrating sphere and at an incidence angle of 80, of a cured material of the reaction curable composition for light in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than or equal to 800 nm is less than or equal to 0.5% of Claim 14; a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 20 rpm of the reaction curable composition is less than or equal to 200 Pa∙s of Claim 15; a thixotropic index which is a ratio of a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 2 rpm, of the reaction curable composition to a viscosity measured with the B-type rotary viscometer at 25°C at 20 rpm is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 7 of Claim 16; or wherein an elastic modulus of a cured material of the reaction curable composition at -40°C is less than or equal to 10 GPa of Claim 17.
Nevertheless, the properties of the anti-reflection material, such as the reflectance, viscosity, thixotropic index and elastic modulus, are functions of the composition and ingredients of the composition. Since Takabayashi ‘301 teaches the same anti-reflection material with the same ingredients as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the anti-reflection material of Takabayashi ‘301 would inherently result in the same reflectance, viscosity, thixotropic index, and elastic modulus as required by the instant claims. More specifically, Tabayashi ‘301 teaches that the porous filler surface area tends to contribute to the suppression of viscosity and thixotropy in the resin composition, thereby ensuring fluidity when manufacturing anti-reflective materials, and the porous filler causes the reflectance [¶ 0034]. Since Tabayashi ‘301 teaches the same porous filler with the same surface area and the same reflective properties, the viscosity, thixotropic index, and reflectance would also inherently be the same. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed anti-reflection material properties, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (curable resin and antireflection filler) for the same utility (making curable compositions) and for the same purpose (producing a cured antireflection product).
Claims 14-17 are rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takabayashi (WO 2017/122691 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘691”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Takabayashi ‘691 teaches the reactive component and porous antireflection filler of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claims 14-17, however, Takabayashi ‘691 does not explicitly teach an average specular reflectance, measured by using an integrating sphere and at an incidence angle of 80, of a cured material of the reaction curable composition for light in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than or equal to 800 nm is less than or equal to 0.5% of Claim 14; a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 20 rpm of the reaction curable composition is less than or equal to 200 Pa∙s of Claim 15; a thixotropic index which is a ratio of a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 2 rpm, of the reaction curable composition to a viscosity measured with the B-type rotary viscometer at 25°C at 20 rpm is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 7 of Claim 16; or wherein an elastic modulus of a cured material of the reaction curable composition at -40°C is less than or equal to 10 GPa of Claim 17.
Nevertheless, the properties of the anti-reflection material, such as the reflectance, viscosity, thixotropic index, and elastic modulus are functions of the composition and ingredients of the composition. Since Takabayashi ‘691 teaches the same anti-reflection material with the same ingredients as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the anti-reflection material of Takabayashi ‘691 would inherently result in the same reflectance, viscosity, thixotropic index, and elastic modulus as required by the instant claims. More specifically, Tabayashi ‘691 teaches that the porous filler surface area contributes to the suppression of the viscosity and thixotropy in the resin composition, thereby ensuring fluidity when manufacturing anti-reflective materials, and the porous filler causes the reflectance [Page 88, ¶ 1]. Since Tabayashi ‘691 teaches the same porous filler with the same surface area and the same reflective properties, the viscosity, thixotropic index, and reflectance would also inherently be the same. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed anti-reflection material properties, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (curable resin and antireflection filler) for the same utility (making curable compositions) and for the same purpose (producing a cured antireflection product).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi (WO 2018/070301 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘301”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Takabayashi ‘301 teaches the reactive component and antireflection porous filler of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Takabayashi ‘301 does not explicitly teach the antireflection filler (B1) is provided with the plurality of projections in a portion having an area of greater than or equal to 10% of the surface of each of the particles of the antireflection filler (B1) of Claim 2
Nevertheless, Takabayashi ‘301 teaches if the porous filler porosity is 0.1 mL/g or more, the porous filler tends to spread throughout the entire resin layer and easily form an uneven surface and the mechanical strength of the porous filler improves when the porosity is 5 mL/g or less [¶ 0035]. Takabayashi ‘301 also teaches that due to the porous structure of porous fillers, their apparent volume relative to the resin layer increases compared to non-porous fillers and even small amounts can be distributed throughout the entire resin layer, forming uniform and fine irregularities on its surface that suppress surface reflection [¶ 0022]. Therefore, porosity of the porous filler can be optimized to evenly disperse throughout the resin layer while improving mechanical strength via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust porosity and volume amount of porous filler for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 14-16, however, Takabayashi ‘301 does not explicitly teach an average specular reflectance, measured by using an integrating sphere and at an incidence angle of 80, of a cured material of the reaction curable composition for light in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than or equal to 800 nm is less than or equal to 0.5% of Claim 14; a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 20 rpm of the reaction curable composition is less than or equal to 200 Pa∙s of Claim 15; or a thixotropic index which is a ratio of a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 2 rpm, of the reaction curable composition to a viscosity measured with the B-type rotary viscometer at 25°C at 20 rpm is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 7 of Claim 16.
Nevertheless, Takabayashi ‘301 teaches suppression of viscosity and thixotropy in resin compositions containing porous fillers ensures fluidity when manufacturing antireflective materials [¶ 0034]. Therefore, the viscosity of Claim 15 and thixotropy index of Claim 16 can be optimized to reach the desired reflectance of Claim 14 via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the viscosity and thixotropy index for the intended reflectance via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Claims 2 and 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi (WO 2017/122691 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘691”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”).
Takabayashi ‘691 teaches the reactive component and porous antireflection filler of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 2, however, Takabayashi ‘691 does not explicitly teach the antireflection filler (B1) is provided with the plurality of projections in a portion having an area of greater than or equal to 10% of the surface of each of the particles of the antireflection filler (B1) of Claim 2.
Nevertheless, Takabayashi ‘691 teaches if the porous filler porosity is 0.1 mL/g or more, the porous filler tends to spread throughout the entire resin layer and easily form an uneven surface and the mechanical strength of the porous filler improves when the porosity is 5 mL/g or less [Page 14, ¶ 2]. Therefore, porosity of the porous filler can be optimized to evenly disperse throughout the resin layer while improving mechanical strength can be optimized to reach the desired reflection suppression via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust porosity and volume amount of porous filler for the intended application via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Regarding Claims 14-16, however, Takabayashi ‘691 does not explicitly teach an average specular reflectance, measured by using an integrating sphere and at an incidence angle of 80, of a cured material of the reaction curable composition for light in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 400 nm and less than or equal to 800 nm is less than or equal to 0.5% of Claim 14; a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 20 rpm of the reaction curable composition is less than or equal to 200 Pa∙s of Claim 15; or a thixotropic index which is a ratio of a viscosity at 25°C, measured with a B-type rotary viscometer at 2 rpm, of the reaction curable composition to a viscosity measured with the B-type rotary viscometer at 25°C at 20 rpm is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 7 of Claim 16.
Nevertheless, Takabayashi ‘691 teaches suppression of viscosity and thixotropy in resin compositions containing porous fillers ensures fluidity when manufacturing antireflective materials [Page 14, ¶ 1]. Therefore, the viscosity of Claim 15 and thixotropy index of Claim 16 can be optimized to reach the desired reflectance of Claim 14 via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to adjust the viscosity and thixotropy index for the intended reflectance via a routine optimization, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi ‘691 (WO 2017/122691 A1; English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Takabayashi ‘691”) as evidenced by Asahi Glass SI-Tech (“SUNSPHERE: High-performance Micro-sphere Fine Silica”; hereafter as “AGSI”) and in view of Wang et al. (US 20040142191 A1; hereafter as “Wang”).
Takabayashi ‘691 teaches the reactive component and porous antireflection filler of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
However, Takaybayashi ‘691 does not explicitly teach the coloring material (D) of Claims 11-13.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches a non-reflecting epoxy resin adhesive comprising 1.0-10.0 phr of carbon black powder [¶ 0007-0008, 0017], which is equivalent to 1-10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the reactive component, which corresponds with the coloring material (D) of Claim 11; thereby reads on the carbon black of Claim 12; and corresponds with greater than 0 parts by mass and less than or equal to 10 parts by mass of the coloring material relative to 100 parts by mass of the reactive component (A) of Claim 13.
Wang offers the motivation that suitable amounts of carbon black powder produce non-reflecting and non-transparent effects [¶ 0021].
Takabayashi ‘691 and Wang are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of anti-reflection materials comprising a reactive component, such as epoxy, and filler to produce adhesives.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon black of Wang with the antireflection material of Takabayashi ‘691, with the motivation to improve non-reflecting and non-transparent effects, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights