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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the multiple spaces provided in lines 5-6. Also, the “5” listed to the side of the abstract should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the anti-reflection coating " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For sake on compact prosecution the examiner interprets that the antireflective layer according to claim 1 has multiple layers disposed on the substrate.
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, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wako (US Patent Publication Number 2024/0393503 A1) in view of Ito (WO Patent Publication Number 2023/058454 A1).
Wako teaches, as in claim 1, an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation (Fig. 1), the anti-reflection coating (10) comprising an anti-refractive composite layer (23), an oxidation protective layer1 (21, ¶0052 “the highly durable layer 21 is made of cerium dioxide”) disposed on the anti-refractive composite layer (23), and a visible light anti-reflection layer (22, ¶0055 “Silicon dioxide can be used for such a low refractive index surface layer 22”) disposed on the oxidation protection layer (21), Wako fails to teach wherein the anti-reflection coating has a reflectance ranging from 0% to 1% in a wavelength range of 370 to 780 nm, and has a reflectance of 3% to 80% in a wavelength range of 780 to 2500 nm. In a related art, Ito teaches an anti-reflection coating, wherein the anti-reflection coating has a reflectance ranging from 0% to 1% in a wavelength range of 370 to 780 nm (Fig.1, See wavelength 450-680), and has a reflectance of 3% to 80% in a wavelength range of 780 to 2500 nm (Fig. 1, see wavelength 780).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-reflection coating, as taught by Wako, with the reflectance properties, as taught by Ito, for the purpose of providing an antireflection laminate that has excellent antireflection performance and does not reflect color light (Page 1, paragraph 3).
Wako fails to teach, as in claim 2, wherein the anti-reflection coating has a transmittance ranging from 90% to 100% in the wavelength range of 370 to 780 nm. In a related art, Ito teaches wherein the anti-reflection coating has a transmittance ranging from 90% to 100% in the wavelength range of 370 to 780 nm (Page 1, paragraph 4 “the average luminous transmittance at a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is 98% or more”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-reflection coating, as taught by Wako and Ito, with the reflectance properties, as taught by Ito, for the purpose of providing an antireflection laminate that has excellent antireflection performance and does not reflect color light (Page 1, paragraph 3).
Wako teaches, as in claim 4, wherein the visible light anti-reflection layer includes silicon dioxide (¶0055 “Silicon dioxide can be used for such a low refractive index surface layer 22”).
Wako teaches, as in claim 5, wherein the anti-reflection composite layer (23) includes a first anti-reflection composite layer (23a) and at least one second anti-reflection composite layer (23b), and the at least one second anti-reflection composite layer (23b) is disposed on a surface of the first anti-reflection composite layer (23a).
Wako teaches, as in claim 9, a display device (¶0003 “the visibility of displays such as television sets”), comprising a substrate (11), and a first anti-reflection coating (12) according to claim 1, wherein the first anti-reflection coating (12) is disposed on a surface of the substrate2(11).
Wako teaches, as in claim 10, further comprising: a that the antireflective layer (10) according to claim 1 has multiple layers (see all the layers that make up element 12) disposed on the substrate (11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 3 which includes wherein the anti-reflection coating has a reflectance ranging from 3% to 80% and a transmittance ranging from 0% to 60% in a wavelength range of 780 nm to 2500 nm.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 6 which includes wherein a thickness ratio of the oxidation protective layer, the anti-reflection composite layer and the visible light anti-reflection layer is 30.07 to 31.93: T: 43.65 to 46.35, where T=A+n×B, A is a thickness of the first anti-reflection composite layer, B is a thickness of the second anti-reflection composite layer, and n is an integer.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 7 which includes wherein the first anti-reflection composite layer includes, sequentially from top to bottom, a first aluminum-doped zinc oxide layer, a metal layer, a second aluminum-doped zinc oxide layer and a niobium pentoxide layer in a thickness ratio of 4.85 to 5.15: 10.67 to 11.33: 4.85 to 5.15: 19.4 to 20.6.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 8 which includes wherein each of the at least one second anti-reflection composite layer includes, sequentially from top to bottom, a first aluminum-doped zinc oxide layer, a metal layer, a second aluminum-doped zinc oxide layer zinc layer and a niobium pentoxide layer in a thickness ratio is 4.85 to 5.15: 10.67 to 11.33: 4.85 to 5.15: 56.26 to 59.74.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0215931 A1) teaches an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation, the anti-reflection coating comprising an anti-refractive composite layer.
Von Blanckenhagen (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0228214 A1) teaches an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation, the anti-reflection coating comprising an anti-refractive composite layer.
Choi (US Patent Number 6,632513 B1) teaches an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation, the anti-reflection coating comprising an anti-refractive composite layer.
Ukemda (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0348451 A1) teaches an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation, the anti-reflection coating comprising an anti-refractive composite layer.
Watanabe (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0075044 A1) teaches an anti-reflection coating for blocking infrared radiation, the anti-reflection coating comprising an anti-refractive composite layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
12 February 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Cerium dioxide is a known oxidation protective layer.
2 Element 12 is disposed on substrate 11 through the adhesive 13.