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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 illustrates the chemical structure for Formula A-1 and Formula A-2. The metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be ascertained because the instant specification defines Formula A-1, when n1 = 6, as 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate (Formula A-1-1), and when n = 10, as 1,10-decanediol di(meth)acrylate (Formula A-1-2). See paragraphs [0125] – [0130] and the corresponding chemical structures for Formula A-1, A-1-1, and A-1-2 in the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application (US 2024/0103198). However, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate is not accurately represented by Formula A-1 because Formula A-1 does not include (meth)acrylate end groups. In other words, there is a carbon atom present in the end of the C=C portion of the chemical structure immediately adjacent the -O- linkage instead of an oxygen atom, which would form an ester functional group required for such an acrylate. Based on the totality of the evidence, it appears the applicant intended to illustrate Formula A-1 as:
PNG
media_image1.png
258
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Similarly, the scope of Formula A-2 has come under the same scrutiny because the Formula A-1 and Formula A-2 each contain the same end groups, and undergo similar polymerization reactions. Therefore, based on the totality of the evidence, it appears the applicant intended to illustrate Formula A-2 as:
PNG
media_image2.png
317
1382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have Formulas A-1 and A-2 correspond to the chemical structures as annotated above, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claims 2-12 are included in this rejection based on their ultimate dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0338142 (hereinafter “Hartmann”), in view of Unites States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0106637 (hereinafter “Yamazaki”), and further in view of an article titled “A Fluorinated Photoinitiator for Surface Oxygen Inhibition Resistance” by Fei Xu, et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).Regarding claim 1 Hartmann teaches an article 100 comprising a first substrate 140, 280 (paragraphs [0131] – [0134], and Figures 1-2), where the first substrate may be glass (paragraph [0087]), which corresponds to a window comprising a base layer. Hartmann teaches the article 100 comprises a high refractive index optical layer (high refractive layer) 120, 220 which is disposed on the substrate (base layer) 140, 280, and a low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) 130, 230 which is disposed on the high refractive index optical layer (high refractive layer) 120 (paragraphs [0133] – [0134] and Figure 1-2). Hartmann teaches the high refractive index optical layer (high refractive layer) is also referred to as an optical coating layer because Hartmann teaches after application of the optical coating layer, the exposed surface undergoes a structuring process to provide micro/nano structures thereon, and a curable low refractive index material (corresponding to layer 130, 230) is subsequently coated thereon (paragraphs [0100], and [0136] – [0138], and Figures 1-2). Hartmann teaches the optical coating layer (high refractive layer) is prepared from a curable, coatable composition that has been coated and/or cured (paragraph [0085]), which corresponds to the high refractive layer includes a first polymer derived from a first resin composition. Hartmann teaches the low refractive index material (low refractive layer) comprises polymerizable resins including first and second polymerizable components (paragraphs [0102] – [0104]), which corresponds to the low refractive layer includes a second polymer derived from a second resin composition. Hartmann also teaches the low refractive index material (low refractive layer) is generally a photocurable layer, where radiation (e.g. UV) curable compositions includes at least one photoinitiator (paragraphs [0127] and [0131]), which corresponds to the low refractive layer includes a first initiator. Hartmann does not explicitly teach the low refractive index material (low refractive layer including a second polymer derived from a second resin composition) contains hollow particles. Yamazaki teaches an optical film comprising a granular filler, such as inorganic particles (abstract and paragraph [0081]). Yamazaki teaches to cause the optical film to be a layer of a relatively lower refractive index, particles of a low refractive index such as hollow silica particles can be selected to be used (paragraph [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the low refractive index material (low refractive layer) of Hartmann with the hollow particles of Yamazaki to tailor the refractive index of the low refractive index material to a desired level. Hartmann teaches the curable, coatable composition of the optical coating layer (high refractive layer) comprises a curable reaction mixture, where the curable reaction mixture is a free radically polymerizable reaction mixture comprising: a first (meth)acrylate monomer with a high refractive index; a second (meth)acrylate monomer with a low refractive index; and an initiator, where each of these elements may comprise a single material or may be a blend of more than one material (paragraph [0061]). Hartmann teaches the (meth)acrylate monomers include difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers (paragraphs [0102] and [0103]). Hartmann teaches difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers include: 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate monomers (paragraph [0122]), which corresponds to Formula A-1 when R1 and R2 are substituted or unsubstituted methyl groups and n1 = 6; and bisphenol-A ethoxylated diacrylate monomers (paragraph [0113]), which corresponds to Formula A-2 when R3 and R4 are each hydrogen atoms, and m1 and m2 each equal 1, which also corresponds to the sum of m1 and m2 being 30 or less. Regarding the stretchability of the optical coating layer (first resin composition of the high refractive layer), although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the optical coating layer (first resin composition of the high refractive layer) contains a highly stretchable material, the claimed property is deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Hartmann reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112. As previously mentioned, Hartmann teaches the low refractive index material (low refractive layer) includes at least one photoinitiator (paragraphs [0127] and [0131]), which corresponds to the low refractive layer includes a first initiator. Hartmann does not explicitly teach the photoinitiator (first initiator) includes fluorine, and the photoinitiator (first initiator) is present in an amount of about 5 wt% or less with respect to the total amount of the second resin composition. Xu teaches a novel photoinitiator for free radical polymerization in the presence of oxygen and has the ability of moving to the surface (abstract). Xu teaches there are still many limitations of free radical photopolymerization, such as oxygen inhibition, volume shrinkage, and light shielding (page 1158, left hand column, 2nd paragraph). Xu teaches the monomers used in the reaction include (meth)acrylates, such as monofunctional and difunctional (meth)acrylates (page 1159, left hand column, 1st paragraph under the “Experimental Details” heading). Xu teaches the photoinitiator is 2-Methyl-2-benzoylethanolpentadecafluorooctanote (1173-F) (first initiator including fluorine) (page 1159, left hand column, 2nd paragraph under the “Experimental Details” heading). Xu teaches the molecular weight of the polymerized material is closely related to the content of the initiator; that is, the higher the photoinitiator concentration, the lower the molecular weight is (page 1162, right hand column, last paragraph). Xu does not explicitly teach the photoinitiator (first initiator) is present in an amount of about 5 wt% or less with respect to the total amount of the (second) resin composition. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the content of the photoinitiator (first initiator) (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the photoinitiator (first initiator) relative to the total amount of the (second) resin composition through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired molecular weight of the polymerized material. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). Xu teaches the fluorinated photoinitiator (first initiator including fluorine) promoted a method to overcome oxygen inhibition due to its excellent migratory properties. The results indicated that this fluorinated photoinitiator had better qualities in surface photopolymerization than a traditional photoinitiator and could decrease oxygen inhibition effectively without any other additives or co-initiators (page 1163, right hand column, 1st paragraph under the “Conclusion” heading). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photoinitiator of Hartmann with the fluorinated photoinitiator (first initiator including fluorine) of Xu to: decrease oxygen inhibition effectively without any other additives or co-initiators; and/or provide better qualities in surface photopolymerization than a traditional photoinitiator. Regarding claim 2 As previously mentioned, Hartmann teaches (meth)acrylate monomers include difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers, where the difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers include 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate monomers (paragraphs [0102], [0103], and [0122]), which corresponds to the highly stretchable material represented by Formula A-1. In addition, Hartmann teaches the kinds and amounts of polymerizable monomers and oligomers, such as difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers or oligomers, are selected to obtain certain elastic modulus criteria (paragraph [0109]). Hartmann teaches polymerizable composition having too high of an elastic modulus tend not to release from the tool during manufacturing; whereas compositions having too low of an elastic modulus tend to fail cohesively upon release from the mold tool (paragraph [0111]). Hartmann does not explicitly teach teaches the curable, coatable composition of the optical coating layer (first resin composition) contains about 5 wt% or less of the 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-1) with respect to the total amount of the (first) resin composition. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the content of the 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-1) (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-1) relative to the total amount of the (first) resin composition through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired elastic modulus of the polymerizable composition. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).Regarding claim 3 As previously mentioned, Hartmann teaches (meth)acrylate monomers include difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers, where the difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers include bisphenol-A ethoxylated diacrylate monomers (paragraphs [0102], [0103], and [0113]), which corresponds to the highly stretchable material represented by Formula A-2. In addition, Hartmann teaches the kinds and amounts of polymerizable monomers and oligomers, such as difunctional (meth)acrylate monomers or oligomers, are selected to obtain certain elastic modulus criteria (paragraph [0109]). Hartmann teaches polymerizable composition having too high of an elastic modulus tend not to release from the tool during manufacturing; whereas compositions having too low of an elastic modulus tend to fail cohesively upon release from the mold tool (paragraph [0111]). Hartmann does not explicitly teach teaches the curable, coatable composition of the optical coating layer (first resin composition) contains about 5 wt% to about 10 wt% of the bisphenol-A ethoxylated diacrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-2) with respect to the total amount of the (first) resin composition. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the content of the bisphenol-A ethoxylated diacrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-2) (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the bisphenol-A ethoxylated diacrylate monomer (highly stretchable material being represented by Formula A-2) relative to the total amount of the (first) resin composition through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired elastic modulus of the polymerizable composition. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Hartmann teaches the optical coating layer (high refractive layer) may be of any suitable thickness, and exemplifies a thickness of from 1-5 micrometers (1,000 nm – 5,000 nm) (paragraph [0086]), which encompasses/overlaps the claimed range. Hartmann teaches the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) may be of any suitable thickness (paragraph [0130]). Hartmann does not explicitly teach the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) has a thickness ranging from about 50 nm to about 90 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a suitable thickness of the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) using nothing more than routine experimentation. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Hartmann teaches the optical coating layer (high refractive layer) has a refractive index of at least 1.7 (paragraph [0014]), which overlaps the claimed range based on the definition of “about” as provided by the applicant (see paragraph [0084] from the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application (US 2024/0103198)). Hartmann teaches the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) has a refractive index of less than 1.55 (paragraph [0097]), which encompasses the claimed range.Regarding claim 6 In addition, Hartmann teaches the high refractive index material may include fillers comprising zirconia (zirconium oxide) and titania (titanium oxide) (paragraphs [0052] – [0057]). In addition, Yamazaki teaches tin oxide particles imparts antistatic properties to the curable composition forming the optical film (paragraph [0082], and abstract).Regarding claim 7 In addition, Hartmann teaches the article comprises the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) 130 which is disposed on the high refractive index optical layer (high refractive layer) 120 and includes the hollow particles (as taught by Yamazaki above) (paragraph [0133] and Figure 1). As presented in the rejection of claim 1, the low refractive index layer (first low refractive layer) 130 of Hartmann was modified by the photoinitiator of Xu. In addition, Xu teaches a higher concentration of the photoinitiator is in a surface or top layer (second low refractive layer including the fluorine) to be consumed by oxygen (performing the aforementioned overcoming of oxygen inhibition) and a lower content of the photoinitiator is in the bulk or lower layers (first low refractive layer which is disposed on the high refractive layer and includes hollow particles) to initiate monomers (page 1158, right hand column, 1st full paragraph, Figure 6, and pages 1161-1163, under the “Surface Migratory of 1173-F” subheading). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the low refractive index layer (first low refractive layer) 130 of Hartmann with the multilayered structure of Xu to permit the combined functionality of overcoming of oxygen inhibition on the surface while initiating monomers in the bulk or lower layers.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Hartmann teaches the low refractive index material (low refractive layer comprising the second resin composition) is a photocurable layer (paragraph [0131]). Hartmann also teaches radiation (e.g. UV) curable (photocurable) compositions generally include at least one photoinitiator, where suitable photoinitiators include monoacylphosphine oxide and bisacylphosphine oxide (paragraphs [0127] – [0129]), which corresponds to a second initiator that is different than the first initiator.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Yamazaki does not explicitly teach the hollow silica particles have an average particle size ranging from about 50 nm to about 90 nm. However, Hartmann teaches the size of particles are chosen to avoid significant visible light scattering, where the primary particle size (average diameter) ranges from 10-75 nm (paragraph [0056]), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle size of the hollow silica particles of Yamazaki with the particle size range disclosed by Hartmann to prevent visible light scattering.Regarding claim 10 As previously discussed for the rejection of claim 1, the low refractive index material (low refractive layer comprising the second resin composition) of Hartmann is modified with the hollow particles of Yamazaki to tailor the refractive index of the low refractive index material to a desired level. Yamazaki teaches in order to cause the optical film to be a layer of a relatively lower refractive index, particles of a low refractive index such as hollow silica particles can be appropriately selected to be used (paragraph [0082]). Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an amount of the hollow particles contained in the second resin composition is selected from a range of about 25 wt% to about 35 wt% with respect to the total amount of the second resin composition. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the content of the low refractive index hollow silica particles (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate amount of the hollow silica particles through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired lowering of the low refractive index material (low refractive layer comprising the second resin composition) to a desired level. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).Regarding claim 11 In addition, Hartmann teaches layer 150 may be an adhesive laminate with an adhesive layer in contact with the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) 130, and a releasing substrate in contact with the adhesive layer (paragraph [0133], and Figure 1). Hartmann teaches releasing substrates are readily removed from adhesives, where some releasing substrates may comprise a coating layer (functional layer) of a release agent such as a fluorocarbon-containing material (paragraph [0088]), which corresponds to a functional layer which is disposed on the low refractive layer and includes a fluorine-containing compound.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann, Yamazaki, and Xu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0111641 (hereinafter “Coue”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0130478 (hereinafter “Nagata”).Regarding claim 12 As previously discussed for the rejection of claim 11, Hartmann teaches a layered configuration of the low refractive index layer (low refractive layer) 130/adhesive layer/coating layer (functional layer)/releasing substrate (paragraphs [0088] and [0133], and Figure 1), which corresponds to an adhesive layer which is disposed between the functional layer and the low refractive layer. Hartmann teaches the adhesive layers may be an optically clear pressure-sensitive adhesive (paragraphs [0089] – [0090]). Hartman does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer includes a silane coupling agent, wherein the silane coupling agent has an atomic ratio of nitrogen atoms and silicon atoms that is selected from a range of about 1:1.8 to about 1:2.2. Coue teaches a functionalized laminated optical element comprising a layer of a pressure sensitive adhesive of optical quality (abstract). Coue teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive of optical quality comprises advantageously a silane coupling agent (paragraph [0057]). Coue teaches the presence of both a silane coupling agent and a tackifier in the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition results in a functionalized laminated optical element with an even better wheel edging resistance (paragraph [0060]). Coue does not explicitly teach particular types of silane coupling agents for the pressure sensitive adhesive composition. Nagata teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive composition for an optical film (abstract). Nagata teaches to improve adhesion under high-temperature, high-humidity conditions, any various silane coupling agents may be added to the pressure-sensitive adhesive composition for the optical film (paragraph [0074]). Nagata teaches the silane coupling agents include a combination of two or more, where a first silane coupling agent comprises an amino group-containing silane coupling agent such as γ-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (having a nitrogen atom to silicon atom atomic ratio of 1:1), and a second silane coupling agent comprises a vinyl group-containing silane coupling agent such as vinyltriethoxysilane (having a nitrogen atom to silicon atom atomic ratio of 0:1) are disclosed (paragraphs [0074] and [0076]). The combination of the first and second silane coupling agents, as detailed above, would result in a silane coupling agent having a larger relative amount of silicon atoms compared to nitrogen atoms, resulting in an atomic ratio of nitrogen atom to silicon atom atomic ratio 1:>1, based on the relative amount of each of the first and second silane coupling agents used. Nagata does not explicitly teach an amount for each of the first silane coupling agent (containing the amino group) and the second silane coupling agent (containing the vinyl group) in the silane coupling agent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine a content for each of the first silane coupling agent (containing the amino group) and the second silane coupling agent (containing the vinyl group) in the silane coupling agent (and the resulting atomic ratio of nitrogen atoms and silicon atoms) using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired adhesion improvement. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Hartmann, Coue and Nagata are analogous inventions in the field of optical pressure-sensitive adhesives. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Hartmann with the silane coupling agent from the combination of Coue and Nagata to: improve wheel edging resistance; and/or improve adhesive performance under high-temperature, high-humidity conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights