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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) in view of Ko et al (US 5846650) and in view of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and further in view of Sakai et al (US 20170315396) and in further view of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727)
Regarding Claim 1,
Choi et al discloses an anti-reflection film comprising: a substrate (column 4, lines 5-45); a first layer, comprising a metal oxide film, disposed on the substrate; and a second layer, comprising a polymer disposed on a first layer.
Choi et al does not disclose the second layer comprising a fluorinated organic thin film having pores and wherein the pores have uneven surfaces exposed upward.
Ko et al disclose the second layer comprising a fluorinated organic thin film (ABSTRACT)
BYUN, JIN SEOK et al discloses the fluorinated organic thin film having pores.(“… In addition, a method for preparing an antireflection film is provided herein, which includes the steps of applying a resin composition for forming a low-refractive layer on a hard coat layer, and drying the resin composition, the resin composition including a photopolymerizable compound Or a (co) polymer thereof, a fluorinated compound including a photoreactive functional group, a photoinitiator, and porous inorganic nano particles having a diameter of 5 to 70 nm, the porous inorganic nano particles containing particles having a diameter of 0.5 to 10 nm micropores; and the dried product of the resin composition was photocured…”)
Sakai et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) wherein the pores (62) have uneven surfaces exposed upward (as shown in the figures).
Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al discloses at least two adjacent pores have different depths from each other. [0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al to include Ko et al’s fluorinated organic thin film motivated by the desire to improve optical performance and durability to further include BYUN, JIN SEOK et al’s fluorinated organic thin film having pores motivated by the desire to achieve high scratch resistance and anti pollution properties therefore increasing the screen clarity of the display device (tech-problem) to further include Sakai et al’s pores having uneven surfaces exposed upward motivated by the desire to provide a reliable anti reflective surface to further include Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al’s at least two adjacent pores have different depths from each other [0055] motivated by the desire to produce a continuous gradient in the effective index of refraction [0087].
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al, Ko et al discloses wherein the second layer is formed of Teflon (column 5, lines 17-25).
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al, Ko et al discloses wherein the second layer comprises an organic material, comprising a fluorine group in an organic chain (column 5, lines 27-37).
Claim(s) 2,7,8,10,13,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and of Sakai et al (US 20170315396) and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) in view of ZHOU GUANGHUI (CN 106564228 A)
Regarding Claim 2,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, and Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al does not disclose an ultra-thin layer disposed on an uppermost surface of the second layer.
ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses an ultra-thin layer disposed on an uppermost surface of the second layer (ABSTRACT)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Sakai et al, Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al and Jin Seok et al to include ZHOU GUANGHUI’s ultra-thin layer disposed on an uppermost surface of the second layer motivated by the desire to provide a protective screen that has anti scratching and fingerprinting proof display.
Regarding Claim 7,
Choi et al discloses a method of manufacturing an anti-reflection film (ABSTRACT), the method comprising: forming a first layer by vacuum-depositing a metal oxide film (metal oxide) on a substrate.
Choi et al does not disclose forming a fluorinated organic material layer by depositing a fluorinated organic material on the first layer; forming an ultra-thin film layer by depositing an ultra-thin film material on the fluorinated organic material layer; and forming a second layer by injecting accelerated ions onto the ultra-thin film layer and etching the fluorinated organic material layer.
Ko et al disclose the second layer comprising a fluorinated organic thin film (ABSTRACT)
BYUN, JIN SEOK et al discloses the fluorinated organic thin film having pores.(“… In addition, a method for preparing an antireflection film is provided herein, which includes the steps of applying a resin composition for forming a low-refractive layer on a hard coat layer, and drying the resin composition, the resin composition including a photopolymerizable compound Or a (co) polymer thereof, a fluorinated compound including a photoreactive functional group, a photoinitiator, and porous inorganic nano particles having a diameter of 5 to 70 nm, the porous inorganic nano particles containing particles having a diameter of 0.5 to 10 nm micropores; and the dried product of the resin composition was photocured…”)
ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses an ultra-thin layer disposed on an uppermost surface of the second layer (ABSTRACT)
Sakai et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) wherein the fluorinated organic material layer includes pores (62) have uneven surfaces exposed upward (as shown in the figures).
Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al discloses at least two adjacent pores have different depths from each other. [0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al to include Ko et al’s fluorinated organic thin film motivated by the desire to improve optical performance and durability to further include BYUN, JIN SEOK et al’s fluorinated organic thin film having pores motivated by the desire to achieve high scratch resistance and anti-pollution properties therefore increasing the screen clarity of the display device. (tech-problem) to further include ZHOU GUANGHUI’s ultra-thin layer disposed on an uppermost surface of the second layer motivated by the desire to provide a protective screen that has anti scratching and fingerprinting proof display; to further include Sakai et al’s pores having uneven surfaces exposed upward motivated by the desire to provide a reliable anti reflective surface to further include Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al’s at least two adjacent pores have different depths from each other [0055] motivated by the desire to produce a continuous gradient in the effective index of refraction [0087].
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI, ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein at least a portion of the ultra-thin material remains on an uppermost surface of the second layer to form an ultra-thin layer.
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI,Choi et al discloses wherein the ultra-thin film material has a wavelength in a visible light region, and the ultra-thin film material comprises at least one of TiOx, ZnOx, TaOx, SiOx, ZrOx, CrOx, CuOx, WOx, and Vox, where x is 0.5 to 2.5. (column 1, lines 25-40)
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI,Ko et al discloses wherein the second layer is formed of Teflon (column 5, lines 17-25).
Regarding Claim 14,
In addition to Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI,Ko et al discloses wherein the second layer comprises an organic material, comprising a fluorine group in an organic chain (column 5, lines 27-37).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) in view of KIMURA, and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) and Sakai et al (US 20170315396) in view of TOMOYUKI et al (TW 202122886 A)
Regarding Claim 3,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI, discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI does not disclose wherein a refractive index of the first layer is 1.7 or less
KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al discloses wherein a refractive index of the first layer is 1.7 or less.(“… The material of the inorganic fine particles is, for example, a metal oxide. Specific examples of metal oxides include zirconia (refractive index: 2.19), alumina (refractive index: 1.56 to 2.62), titanium oxide (refractive index: 2.49 to 2.74), silicon oxide (refractive index: 1.25 to 1.46). These metal oxides not only have low light absorption, but also have a higher refractive index than organic materials such as ionizing radiation hardening resins or thermoplastic resins, so they are suitable for adjusting the refractive index of the high refractive index layers 1 and 3. The inorganic fine particles preferably contain zirconium oxide or titanium oxide…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI to include KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al refractive index of the first layer (metal oxide) is 1.7 or less . The metal oxide has low light absorption, but also have a higher refractive index than organic materials such as ionizing radiation hardening resins or thermoplastic resins, so they are suitable for adjusting the refractive index of the high refractive index layers 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and Sakai et al (US 20170315396) and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) in view of Song et al (US 10983252)
Regarding Claim 4,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI does not disclose wherein a total volume ratio of voids in the second layer is 20% or more relative to a total volume of the second layer.
Song et al discloses wherein a total volume ratio of voids in the second layer is 20% or more relative to a total volume of the second layer (Column 6, lines 10-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI to include Song et al’s total volume ratio of voids in the second layer is 20% or more relative to a total volume of the second layer motivated by the desire to improve the mechanical properties of the outer surface while maintain an optimized refractive index distribution thereby realizing lower reflectance and having a relatively stable structure against scratches or external contaminants (column 6, lines 30-35)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and of ZHOU GUANGHUI (CN 106564228 A) and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) in view of KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al (TW 202122886 A)
Regarding Claim 9,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI does not disclose wherein a refractive index of the first layer is 1.7 or less
KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al discloses wherein a refractive index of the first layer is 1.7 or less.(“… The material of the inorganic fine particles is, for example, a metal oxide. Specific examples of metal oxides include zirconia (refractive index: 2.19), alumina (refractive index: 1.56 to 2.62), titanium oxide (refractive index: 2.49 to 2.74), silicon oxide (refractive index: 1.25 to 1.46). These metal oxides not only have low light absorption, but also have a higher refractive index than organic materials such as ionizing radiation hardening resins or thermoplastic resins, so they are suitable for adjusting the refractive index of the high refractive index layers 1 and 3. The inorganic fine particles preferably contain zirconium oxide or titanium oxide…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI to include KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al refractive index of the first layer (metal oxide) is 1.7 or less . The metal oxide has low light absorption, but also have a higher refractive index than organic materials such as ionizing radiation hardening resins or thermoplastic resins, so they are suitable for adjusting the refractive index of the high refractive index layers 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and of ZHOU GUANGHUI (CN 106564228 A) and of KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al (TW 202122886 A) and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) in view of LIAO M et al (CN 115101619 A)
Regarding Claim 11,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI does not disclose wherein the ultra-thin film material has a thickness of 10 nm or less.
LIAO M et al discloses wherein the ultra-thin film material has a thickness of 10 nm or less.(ABSTRACT NOVELTY)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI to include Liao M et al ultra-thin film material has a thickness of 10 nm or less motivated by the desire to improve battery efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 6815056) and of Ko et al (US 5846650) and of BYUN, JIN SEOK et al (TW 201802169 A) and of ZHOU GUANGHUI (CN 106564228 A) and of KIMURA, TOMOYUKI et al (TW 202122886 A) and of Cheng, Chia-hung Calvin et al (WO 2022087727) in view of Song et al (US 10983252)
Regarding Claim 12,
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI discloses everything as disclosed above.
Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI does not disclose
Song et al discloses wherein a total volume ratio of voids in the second layer is 20% or more relative to a total volume of the second layer (Column 6, lines 10-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Choi et al, Ko et al, and Byun, Jin Seok et al, Sakai et al, and Cheng,Chia-hung Calvin et al and ZHOU GUANGHUI to include Song et al’s total volume ratio of voids in the second layer is 20% or more relative to a total volume of the second layer motivated by the desire to improve the mechanical properties of the outer surface while maintain an optimized refractive index distribution thereby realizing lower reflectance and having a relatively stable structure against scratches or external contaminants (column 6, lines 30-35)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST 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, Michael 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights