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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5-6, " a longitudinal direction of the major surface " should read - - a longitudinal direction of the one of the two major surfaces - -
In claim 1, lines 6-7, " a short direction of the major surface " should read - - a short direction of the one of the two major surfaces - -
In claim 3, line 3, " when " should read - - in a case that - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “The antiglare film-provided transparent substrate according to claim 1, wherein an antifouling film is further provided on the side of the first major surface ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the limitations “the side” and “the first major surface” in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted this limitation as - - The antiglare film-provided transparent substrate according to claim 3, wherein an antifouling film is further provided on the side of the first major surface - - since claim 3 states “a first major surface” and “a side of the first major surface”.
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.
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, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraishi (US 2003/0156238).
Regarding claim 1, Hiraishi teaches an antiglare film-provided transparent substrate (Fig. 1, and Fig. 2-7, [0002-0212]) comprising:
a transparent substrate (the substrate corresponding to 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4, [0041, 0045-0046, 0136-0137]) having two major surfaces (the top and bottom surfaces of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4) opposed to each other (Fig. 1 and 4); and
an antiglare film (the film corresponding to 8/17/27 in Fig. 1-4, [0017, 0145], the anisotropic light-diffusing film can inhibit dazzle) laminated to one of the two major surfaces (the top surface of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4),
wherein the major surfaces (the top and bottom surfaces of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4) have a flat shape (Fig. 1 and 4, [0045-0046, 0136-0137]), and
a longitudinal-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fy(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) measured in a longitudinal direction of the one of the two major surfaces (the direction corresponding to Y in Fig. 2 and 4) is larger than (Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) a short-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fx(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) measured in a short direction of the one of the two major surfaces (the direction corresponding to X in Fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Hiraishi teaches a method for manufacturing an antiglare film-provided transparent substrate (Fig. 1, and Fig. 2-7, [0002-0212]), the method comprising:
using a transparent substrate (the substrate corresponding to 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4, [0041, 0045-0046, 0136-0137]) having two major surfaces (the top and bottom surfaces of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4) opposed to each other (Fig. 1 and 4), the major surfaces (the top and bottom surfaces of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4) having a flat shape (Fig. 1 and 4, [0045-0046, 0136-0137]), and an antiglare film (the film corresponding to 8/17/27 in Fig. 1-4, [0017, 0145], the anisotropic light-diffusing film can inhibit dazzle) having a first-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fy(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) measured on the antiglare film (the film corresponding to 8/17/27 in Fig. 1-4, [0017, 0145], the anisotropic light-diffusing film can inhibit dazzle) in a first direction (the direction corresponding to Y in Fig. 2 and 4) larger than a second-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fx(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) measured in a second direction (the direction corresponding to X in Fig. 2 and 4) orthogonal to the first direction (the direction corresponding to Y in Fig. 2 and 4); and
laminating the antiglare film (the film corresponding to 8/17/27 in Fig. 1-4, [0017, 0145], the anisotropic light-diffusing film can inhibit dazzle) to one major surface of the transparent substrate (the top surface of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4) such that the first direction (the direction corresponding to Y in Fig. 2 and 4) is parallel (Fig. 1 and 4) to a longitudinal direction (the direction corresponding to Y in Fig. 2 and 4) of the major surface (the top surface of 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 9, Hiraishi also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 5) the transparent substrate (the substrate corresponding to 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4, [0041, 0045-0046, 0136-0137]) is a glass substrate ([0041]).
(Claim 7) the transparent substrate (the substrate corresponding to 9/25 in Fig. 1 and 4, [0041, 0045-0046, 0136-0137]) is a resin substrate ([0041, 0045-0046]).
(Claim 9) An image display device (21 in Fig. 4) comprising the antiglare film-provided transparent substrate (Fig. 4).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraishi (US 2003/0156238).
Regarding claim 2, Hiraishi teaches that a ratio of the longitudinal-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fy(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) to the short-direction diffusion value (the value corresponding to Fx(θ) in Fig. 2, [0021-0024]) is equal to or greater than 1.01 ([0021-0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of a difference between the longitudinal-direction diffusion value and the short-direction diffusion value being 0.01 or more overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Hiraishi for the system of Hiraishi such that in the system of Hiraishi, a difference between the longitudinal-direction diffusion value and the short-direction diffusion value is 0.01 or more. The motivation is to provide a film which is capable of uniformizing the luminance of the display member, inhibiting dazzle in the display surface and moire generated in correlation between a liquid crystal cell and a plane light source, and improving the display quality level (Hiraishi, [0017]).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraishi as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Takeda (US 2018/0099307).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, Hiraishi teaches that a major surface of the antiglare film-provided transparent substrate (the top surface of 7 in Fig. 1) on a side (the top side of 7 in Fig. 1) where the antiglare film (the film corresponding to 8/17/27 in Fig. 1-4, [0017, 0145]) is laminated is defined as a first major surface (the top surface of 7 in Fig. 1). Hiraishi does not teach the following elements.
Takeda teaches the following elements (Fig. 2, [0125-0153]):
(Claim 3) in a case that a major surface (the top surface of 10 in Fig. 2) of an antiglare film-provided transparent substrate (10 in Fig. 2) on a side (the top side of 10 in Fig. 2) where an antiglare film ( 3 in Fig. 2) is laminated is defined as a first major surface (the top surface of 10 in Fig. 2), an antireflection film (4 in Fig. 2, [0127-0133]) is further provided on a side of the first major surface (the top surface side of 10 in Fig. 2).
(Claim 4) an antifouling film (5 in Fig. 2, [0135-0143]) is further provided on the side of the first major surface (the top surface side of 10 in Fig. 2).
(Claim 6) a glass substrate (2 in Fig. 1-2, [0033-0035, 0190-0191]) is chemically strengthened ([0033-0035, 0190-0191]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Takeda for the system of Hiraishi such that in the system of Hiraishi,
(Claim 3) in a case that the major surface of the antiglare film-provided transparent substrate on the side where the antiglare film is laminated is defined as the first major surface, an antireflection film is further provided on a side of the first major surface.
(Claim 4) an antifouling film is further provided on the side of the first major surface.
(Claim 6) the glass substrate is chemically strengthened.
The motivation is to suppress the reflection of light to blur a reflected image, suppress adhesion of organic matters or inorganic matters to the surface, or bring about an effect capable of easily removing extraneous matters by cleaning such as wiping out even when organic matters or inorganic matters adhere to the surface, and improve the strength of the glass substrate against a flaw or shock (Takeda, [0127, 0135, 0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871