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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 3-10, the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 or 103 is improper over Nakamura US 20020085284 because Nakamura fails to disclose the claim limitation “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display” in the currently amended claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument about 102(a)(1) rejection in page 1-page 4 of Remark. It’s inherent that Nakamura teaches the claim limitations “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display” because Nakamura discloses (15.1% of total haze in Examples 1-7 of table 1) nearly the lowest possible total haze (15%) as the current application with total haze ranges from 15% to 60%. Also Nakamura teaches the rest of the claim limitations in claim 1 such as an inner haze less than or equal to 10% (0.1% or 5%, see internal haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48 and 153), and a reflectivity satisfying the relationships of 0.35%≤ (RSCI-RSCE)≤1.50% (0.8%≤RSCI-RSCE=Mirror reflectance≤1.1%, see Mirror reflectance in each of example 1-7 of table 1) and RSCE≤1.50% (0.8%≤RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance≤0.9%, see each of example 1-7 of table 1). In addition, it’s well-known the lower Haze value, the higher contrast ratio value will be (see Table 1 of current application below) and (Jang US 2023/0244099 teaches this well-known technology that the lower Haze value, the higher contrast ratio value will be (see fig.7 and para.156-161 of Jang teach (CR1-CR2)/CR1=5% with a display with an optical film with a haze value of 40%, and (CR1-CR2)/CR1=15% with a display with an optical film a haze value of 60%, as compare to a display with an optical film (a protective film) having a haze value of 0%). Also, Examples 1-5 of table 1 of Nakamura teaches haze value each of the total haze, inner haze and surface haze are even lower than Haze value in Example 1 (see Table 1 of current application below), so that ratio of (CR1- CR2)/CR1 would be about or less than -1.6% for Examples 1-5 of table 1 of Nakamura, and Examples 6-7 of table 1 of Nakamura will have ratio of (CR1- CR2)/CR1 equal to about 6.2% or less.
Thus, Examples 1-7 of table 1 of Nakamura will satisfy and teach the claim limitations “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display”.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
1258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument about 103 rejection in page 5-page 12 of Remark. If even Nakamura does not inherently teach the claim limitations “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display”, but it will still be obvious to have the claim limitations “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display” because Nakamura (Example 1-7 of table 1) teach all other claim limitations in claim 1, especially, Nakamura teaches internal haze of 0.1% or 5%, External/Surface haze of 15% or 17%, Total Haze of 15.1% to 22%, 0.8%≤RSCI-RSCE=Mirror reflectance≤1.1%, 0.8%≤RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance≤0.9%, 1.7%≤RSCI≤1.9% are similar value to the Example 1 of table 1 of the current application as below. In addition, Nakamura discloses External/Surface haze can be 1 to 20% (para.15 and 52), not just 17% as shown in table 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, based on Examples 1-7 of table 1 of Nakamura and Nakamura teaches all other claim limitations of claim 1, it would have been an obvious design choice to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize CR1 and CR2. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to provide optimal visibility and contrast of a display. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential CR1 and CR2 to the recognized need or problem without lowering visibility and contrast of the display. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential CR1 and CR2 with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), so that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Nakamura so that the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1-CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display for the purpose of preventing lowering visibility and contrast of the display device.
Therefore, The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura US 20020085284.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a display (a liquid crystal display device), in fig.1, comprising:
a display panel (a display panel of the liquid crystal display device, para.29 and 161); and
an optical film (1) disposed on a viewing side of the display panel (para.29 and claim 18);
wherein the optical film has a total haze ranging from 15% to 60% (see haze value of Sum of internal and external Haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48,52 and para.153), an inner haze less than or equal to 10% (see internal haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48 and 153), and a reflectivity satisfying the relationships of 0.35%≤ (RSCI-RSCE)≤1.50% (RSCI-RSCE=Mirror reflectance, see Mirror reflectance in each of example 1-7 of table 1) and RSCE≤1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see each of example 1-7 of table 1) wherein Rsc1 is an average reflectivity of diffuse component and specular component, and RSCE is an average reflectivity of diffuse component (see example 1-7 of table 1);
wherein the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display (it’s inherent that Nakamura teaches “the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display” because Nakamura disclose (15.1% of total haze) nearly the lowest possible total haze (15%) as the current application with total haze ranges from 15% to 60%, and it’s well-known the lower Haze value, the higher contrast ratio value will be).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses the average reflectivity of diffuse component RSCE ranges from 0.80% to 1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see example 1-7 of table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the optical film comprises a substrate (2), a light diffusing layer (4, or 4 with 3) disposed on the substrate, and a refractive-index-matching layer (5) disposed on the light diffusing layer.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses the substrate has a thickness ranging from 10 µm to 150 µm (para.131,138 and139).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses the substrate is selected from one of group consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polycarbonate (PC), triacetyl cellulose (TAC), polyimide (PI), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), cyclic olefin polymer (COP) and cyclic olefin copolymer (COC)(see para.33).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses the light diffusing layer has a refractive index of n1 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), the refractive-index-matching layer has a refractive index of n2 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33), and index of n2 is less than index of n1 (see para.33).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses the refractive index of n 1 ranges from 1.50 to 1.70 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), and the refractive index of n2 ranges from 1.20 to 1.50 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses the light diffusion layer has a thickness ranging from 2 µm to 10 µm (para.58 and 131).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses the refractive-index-matching layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm (para.134).
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 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura US 20020085284.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a display (a liquid crystal display device), in fig.1, comprising:
a display panel (a display panel of the liquid crystal display device, para.29 and 161); and
an optical film (1) disposed on a viewing side of the display panel (para.29 and claim 18);
wherein the optical film has a total haze ranging from 15% to 60% (see haze value of Sum of internal and external Haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48,52 and para.153), an inner haze less than or equal to 10% (see internal haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48 and 153), and a reflectivity satisfying the relationships of 0.35%≤ (RSCI-RSCE)≤1.50% (RSCI-RSCE=Mirror reflectance, see Mirror reflectance in each of example 1-7 of table 1) and RSCE≤1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see each of example 1-7 of table 1) wherein Rsc1 is an average reflectivity of diffuse component and specular component, and RSCE is an average reflectivity of diffuse component (see example 1-7 of table 1).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display.
However, based on table 1 of Nakamura and Nakamura teaches all other claim limitations of claim 1 and the optical film has low total haze value (15.1% see table 1), it would have been an obvious design choice to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize CR1 and CR2. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to provide optimal visibility and contrast of a display. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential CR1 and CR2 to the recognized need or problem without lowering visibility and contrast of the display. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential CR1 and CR2 with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Nakamura so that the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1-CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display for the purpose of preventing lowering visibility and contrast of the display device.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses the average reflectivity of diffuse component RSCE ranges from 0.80% to 1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see example 1-7 of table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the optical film comprises a substrate (2), a light diffusing layer (4, or 4 with 3) disposed on the substrate, and a refractive-index-matching layer (5) disposed on the light diffusing layer.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses the substrate has a thickness ranging from 10 µm to 150 µm (para.131,138 and139).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses the substrate is selected from one of group consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polycarbonate (PC), triacetyl cellulose (TAC), polyimide (PI), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), cyclic olefin polymer (COP) and cyclic olefin copolymer (COC)(see para.33).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses the light diffusing layer has a refractive index of n1 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), the refractive-index-matching layer has a refractive index of n2 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33), and index of n2 is less than index of n1 (see para.33).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses the refractive index of n 1 ranges from 1.50 to 1.70 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), and the refractive index of n2 ranges from 1.20 to 1.50 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses the light diffusion layer has a thickness ranging from 2 µm to 10 µm (para.58 and 131).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses the refractive-index-matching layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm (para.134).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura US 20020085284 in view of Kuroda US 2013/0279155.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a display (a liquid crystal display device), in fig.1, comprising:
a display panel (a display panel of the liquid crystal display device, para.29 and 161); and
an optical film (1) disposed on a viewing side of the display panel (para.29 and claim 18);
wherein the optical film has a total haze ranging from 15% to 60% (see haze value of Sum of internal and external Haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48,52 and para.153), an inner haze less than or equal to 10% (see internal haze in each of example 1-7 of table 1 and para.48 and 153), and a reflectivity satisfying the relationships of 0.35%≤ (RSCI-RSCE)≤1.50% (RSCI-RSCE=Mirror reflectance, see Mirror reflectance in each of example 1-7 of table 1) and RSCE≤1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see each of example 1-7 of table 1) wherein Rsc1 is an average reflectivity of diffuse component and specular component, and RSCE is an average reflectivity of diffuse component (see example 1-7 of table 1).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display.
Kuroda discloses a display, figs.2-6, a display with an optical film (antiglare film, para.222 and 164) has a contrast ratio of 90% or higher (para.222) for the purpose of preventing deterioration of dark room contrast becomes inferior and visibility (para.222) and suppressing generation of a rainbow interference pattern and interference fringes in a display images (Abstract).
Accordingly, 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 display with an optical film has a contrast ratio of 90% or higher as taught by Kuroda in the display of Nakamura in order to have the display has a change rate of the contrast ratio satisfying the relationships (CR1- CR2)/CR1≤20%, wherein CR1 is a contrast ratio of a display with a protective film having a haze less than 5%, and CR2 is a contrast ratio of the display for the purpose of preventing deterioration of dark room contrast becomes inferior and visibility and suppressing generation of a rainbow interference pattern and interference fringes in a display images.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses the average reflectivity of diffuse component RSCE ranges from 0.80% to 1.50% (RSCE= integral reflectance-Mirror reflectance, see example 1-7 of table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses the optical film comprises a substrate (2), a light diffusing layer (4, or 4 with 3) disposed on the substrate, and a refractive-index-matching layer (5) disposed on the light diffusing layer.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses the substrate has a thickness ranging from 10 µm to 150 µm (para.131,138 and139).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses the substrate is selected from one of group consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polycarbonate (PC), triacetyl cellulose (TAC), polyimide (PI), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), cyclic olefin polymer (COP) and cyclic olefin copolymer (COC)(see para.33).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses the light diffusing layer has a refractive index of n1 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), the refractive-index-matching layer has a refractive index of n2 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33), and index of n2 is less than index of n1 (see para.33).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses the refractive index of n 1 ranges from 1.50 to 1.70 (1.57 to 1.8, para.33 and 46), and the refractive index of n2 ranges from 1.20 to 1.50 (1.38 to 1.49, para.33).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses the light diffusion layer has a thickness ranging from 2 µm to 10 µm (para.58 and 131).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses the refractive-index-matching layer has a thickness ranging from 0.1 µm to 0.3 µm (para.134).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang US 2023/0244099 teaches this well-known technology that the lower Haze value, the higher contrast ratio value will be (see fig.7 and para.156-161) can be a secondary reference as well.
In addition, Matsunage US 20070104896 (table 11, 207,208, claims 1 and 6), Inoue US 2007/0229804 (para.124 and 125 and fig.1) and Watanabe US 20070231478 (fig.5, para.140, 190 and 191) can be a primary reference for claims 1 and 3-10 as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871