DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “composite particles” should read “composite particulates”; consistent terminology must be used throughout the claims
In claim 7, “metal oxide particles” should read “metal oxide particulates”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
5. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant claims “particle size.” It is unclear whether this language is intended to refer to the radius or diameter of a particle. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret such that “particle size” describes a particle’s diameter.
Claim 3 is rejected for similar issues of clarity.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant claims “a first compound represented by the following structure: █.” Since no corresponding structure is included, it is unclear what structure is being claimed. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret such that the structure presented in [0045] of the spec is claimed as the first compound.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar issues of clarity. The examiner will interpret such that the structure presented in [0059] of the spec is claimed as the second compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura et al. (US 20070022798 A1) in view of Iwasa et al. (US 8614013 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Asakura discloses an anti-glare layer comprising:
a substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, substrate film);
an anti-glare sub-layer disposed on a side of the substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, antiglare layer); and
a hardened sub-layer disposed on a side of the anti-glare sub-layer away from the substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, hardcoat layer);
wherein the anti-glare sub-layer comprises a first resin matrix (column 24 line 25) and composite particulates dispersed in the first resin matrix (column 24 line 26), and the composite particulates comprise metal oxide particulates (column 5 lines 38-41 of reference US-6696140-B2, whose Japanese counterpart JP-A-2000-338310 is cited in column 24 line 28 of Asakura),
wherein a difference between a refractive index of the composite particulates and a refractive index of the first resin matrix is greater than 0.25 (column 5 lines 28-45, a refractive index difference of at least 0.8-1.2 may be achieved when TiO2 is used).
Asakura fails to explicitly disclose wherein a titanate-based compound is connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates.
However, Iwasa teaches a similar optical device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a resin matrix and metal oxide particulates (claim 2), and discloses wherein a titanate-based compound is connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Asakura and Iwasa such that a titanate-based compound was connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates, motivated by stabilizing the metal oxide particulates.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Asakura discloses wherein the composite particulates have a particle size greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 10 micrometers (Asakura - column 2 line 28 of US-6696140-B2).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Asakura discloses wherein the composite particles have a particle size greater than or equal to 3 micrometers and less than or equal to 5 micrometers (Asakura - column 2 line 28 of US-6696140-B2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Asakura discloses wherein the titanate-based compound is formed by a titanate-based coupling agent (Iwasa - column 14 line 5, Plenact KR TTS), and a refractive index of the titanate-based coupling agent is greater than 1.45 (Iwasa - column 14 line 5, Plenact KR TTS has a refractive index of about 1.48).
Regarding claim 5, modified Asakura fails to disclose wherein the titanate-based compound is formed by a titanate-based coupling agent selected from at least one of titanium diisopropoxide bis(acetylacetonate), diisopropoxy-bisethylacetoacetatotitanate, isopropyl trioleyl titanate, isopropyl tri(dioctylpyrophosphate) titanate, and titanium bis(triethanolamine)diisopropoxide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the device such that the titanate-based compound was formed by a titanate-based coupling agent selected from the coupling agents provided, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by promoting adhesion.
Regarding claim 6, modified Asakura discloses wherein the composite particulates have a refractive index greater than 1.75 (Asakura - column 5 lines 28-29 of US-6696140-B2, TiO2), and the difference between the refractive index of the composite particulates and the refractive index of the first resin matrix is less than 1 (Asakura - column 5 lines 38-39 of US-6696140-B2, a difference of 0.8-1.2 may be achieved when TiO2 is used).
Regarding claim 7, modified Asakura discloses wherein the metal oxide particles are selected from one or more of zirconia, titanium oxide (Asakura - column 5 lines 38-39 of US-6696140-B2, TiO2), zinc oxide, antimony pentoxide, cerium oxide, and yttrium oxide.
Regarding claim 8, modified Asakura discloses wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first active diluent (Asakura - column 28 line 67) and a first photoinitiator (Asakura - column 10 line 53 of US-6696140-B2);
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (Asakura - column 29 lines 3-4), (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the first photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone (Asakura - column 10 line 53 of US-6696140-B2, Irgacure 184), benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone, benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone, 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
Regarding claim 9, modified Asakura discloses wherein the first resin matrix further comprises a first resin (Asakura - column 2 lines 23-34 of US-6696140-B2, light-transparent resin); and
wherein based upon 100 parts by weight of the first resin in the anti-glare sub-layer, the composite particulates are present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight (Asakura - column 2 line 31 of US-6696140-B2, 5 to 30 parts), the first active diluent is present in an amount ranging from 5 to 20 parts by weight (Asakura - column 7 line 28 of US-6696140-B2, 20 to 1000 parts), and the first photoinitiator is present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight (Asakura - column 10 line 53 of US-6696140-B2, 8 parts).
Regarding claim 10, modified Asakura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin formed by cross-linking a nine functional polyurethane.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the first resin such that it was formed by cross-linking a nine functional polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 12, modified Asakura fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, and the second resin matrix comprises a second resin formed by cross-linking a fifteen functional polyurethane.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second resin formed by cross-linking a fifteen functional polyurethane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by hardening the device.
Regarding claim 14, modified Asakura fails to disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, and the second resin matrix comprises a second active diluent and a second photoinitiator;
wherein the first active diluent is selected from at least one of trimethylolethane tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic triglyceride, pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, di(trimethylol propane) tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, isobornyl (meth)acrylate, 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, triethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, oxybis(methyl-2,1-ethanediyl) diacrylate, tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate, tricyclodecanedimethanol diacrylate, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate; and
wherein the second photoinitiator is selected from at least one of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-propanone, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl)ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone, benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acyl phosphine oxide, a titanocene compound, benzophenone, benzoyl benzoic acid, benzoyl benzoic acid methyl ether, 4-benzoylbiphenyl, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenylsulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone, 2-chlorothiotonone, 2-methylthioxenone, 2,4-dimethylthioxenone, and isopropylthioxine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the device such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix and the second resin matrix was to comprise a second active diluent and a second photoinitiator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977), in order to harden the device.
Regarding claim 15, modified Asakura discloses wherein the second resin matrix further comprises a second resin (rejection of claim 14); and
wherein based upon 100 parts by weight of the second resin in the hardened sub-layer, the second active diluent is present in an amount ranging from 5 to 10 parts by weight (Asakura - column 7 line 28 of US-6696140-B2, 20 to 1000 parts), and the second photoinitiator is present in an amount ranging from 1 to 10 parts by weight (Asakura - column 10 line 53 of US-6696140-B2, 8 parts).
Regarding claim 16, modified Asakura discloses wherein a haze of the anti-glare layer is greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 65% (Asakura - column 22 lines 48-51); and
wherein a pencil hardness of the anti-glare layer is greater than or equal to 4H (Asakura - column 21 lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 17, modified Asakura discloses wherein a thickness of the anti-glare sub-layer is greater than or equal to 1 micrometer and less than or equal to 10 micrometers (Asakura - column 25 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 18, Asakura discloses a display device comprising a display panel (column 6 line 30, large-screen liquid crystal display device) and an anti-glare layer disposed on a light output side of the display panel (column 21 lines 5-6, layers taken together), wherein the anti-glare layer comprises:
a substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, substrate film);
an anti-glare sub-layer disposed on a side of the substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, antiglare layer); and
a hardened sub-layer disposed on a side of the anti-glare sub-layer away from the substrate (column 21 lines 5-6, hardcoat layer);
wherein the anti-glare sub-layer comprises a first resin matrix (column 24 line 25) and composite particulates dispersed in the first resin matrix (column 24 line 26), and the composite particulates comprise metal oxide particulates (column 5 lines 38-41 of reference US-6696140-B2, whose Japanese counterpart JP-A-2000-338310 is cited in column 24 line 28 of Asakura),
wherein a difference between a refractive index of the composite particulates and a refractive index of the first resin matrix is greater than 0.25 (column 5 lines 28-45, a refractive index difference of at least 0.8-1.2 may be achieved when TiO2 is used).
Asakura fails to explicitly disclose wherein a titanate-based compound is connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates.
However, Iwasa teaches a similar optical device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a resin matrix and metal oxide particulates (claim 2), and discloses wherein a titanate-based compound is connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Asakura and Iwasa such that a titanate-based compound was connected to a surface of the metal oxide particulates, motivated by stabilizing the metal oxide particulates.
Regarding claim 19, modified Asakura discloses wherein the anti-glare layer is attached to the light output side of the display panel (Asakura - column 21 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, discloses a polarizer disposed on the light output side of the display panel (Asakura - column 1 lines 8-25), wherein the anti-glare layer is attached to a side of the polarizer away from the display panel (Asakura - column 1 lines 8-25).
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura in view of Iwasa, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20080255264 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, modified Asakura fails to disclose wherein the first resin matrix comprises a first resin formed by cross-linking of a first compound represented by the following structure: █.
However, Hong teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a first resin is formed by cross-linking ([0016]) of a first compound ([0039], EBECRYL 1290).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Asakura and Hong such that a first resin matrix was to comprise a first resin formed by cross-linking of EBECRYL 1290, motivated by hardening the device.
10. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Asakura in view of Iwasa, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (KR 101791452 B1).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, modified Asakura discloses wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, wherein the second resin matrix comprises a second resin formed by cross-linking a second compound represented by the following structure: █.
Modified Asakura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hardened sub-layer comprises a second resin matrix, wherein the second resin matrix comprises a second resin formed by cross-linking a second compound.
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar optical device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a hardened layer comprises a resin formed by a second compound (Fig. 5 & [0133]-[0135], EBECRYL 8301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Asakura and Yamazaki such that the hardened sub-layer was to comprise a second resin matrix, the second resin matrix comprising a second resin formed by cross-linking of EBECRYL 8301, motivated by hardening the device.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872