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 .
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 18 are currently amended; 2-12, 14, 16-17, and 20 are original; claim 19 has been canceled by the applicant; and claim 21 is new.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 27 April 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 15-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa (US6217176) in view of Yabuta (US 20210255364), of record.
Re: claim 1, Maekawa discloses a substrate 12 (Fig. 1); and a plurality of scattering portions 14, 16, 46 (Fig. 1) dispersed on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 discloses dispersed), and each of the plurality of scattering portions comprises an adhesive 14 (col. 5, lines 6-11 disclose curable resin, a known adhesive material) and a plurality of scattering particles 16, 46 dispersed in the adhesive (Fig. 1 discloses dispersed); wherein in a thickness direction of the anti-reflective film, a thickness of the adhesive is greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of scattering particles (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 28-30 disclose that the particles have a diameter preferably between 2-4 microns and col. 5, lines 11-12 disclose that the thickness of the adhesive is preferably between 2-10 microns. Therefore, for adhesive thicknesses greater than 4 microns, the diameter of the particles is less than the thickness of the adhesive).
Maekawa does not explicitly disclose a gap being provided between adjacent scattering portions.
Yabuta discloses that a gap 12 is provided between adjacent scattering portions (provision disclosed in Figs. 1A, 1B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gap provided between adjacent scattering portions, as disclosed by Yabuta, applied to the device disclosed by Maekawa for the purpose of optimizing the gloss level of the antireflection film used in a predetermined application (see para. 34 of Yabuta: “the gloss level of the antiglare film attached substrate 1a is easily affected by the ratio of the area of the exposed portion 12 to the area of the second principal surface 25 viewed in plan. The gloss level of the antiglare film-attached substrate 1a is easily adjusted in a wide range by adjusting the area of the anti-glare film 20 in the above range.”).
Re: claim 15, Maekawa discloses that the anti-reflective film 10 (Fig. 1) comprises: a substrate 12 (Fig. 1); and a plurality of scattering portions 14, 16, 46 (Fig. 1) dispersed on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 discloses dispersed), and each of the plurality of scattering portions comprises an adhesive 14 (col. 5, lines 6-11 disclose curable resin, a known adhesive material) and a plurality of scattering particles 16, 46 dispersed in the adhesive (Fig. 1 discloses dispersed); wherein in a thickness direction of the anti-reflective film, a thickness of the adhesive is greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of scattering particles (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 28-30 disclose that the particles have a diameter preferably between 2-4 microns and col. 5, lines 11-12 disclose that the thickness of the adhesive is preferably between 2-10 microns. Therefore, for adhesive thicknesses greater than 4 microns, the diameter of the particles is less than the thickness of the adhesive).
Maekawa does not explicitly disclose a display panel comprising a light-emitting substrate; an anti-reflective film being disposed on the light-emitting substrate in a light output direction of the light-emitting substrate, and a gap being provided between adjacent scattering portions.
Yabuta discloses a display panel (para. 57) comprising a light-emitting substrate (screen disclosed in para. 57); an anti-reflective film 1a disposed on the light-emitting substrate in a light output direction of the light-emitting substrate (para. 57 discloses light output direction), and a gap 12 is provided between adjacent scattering portions (Figs. 1A, 1B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a display panel comprising a light-emitting substrate; an anti-reflective film being disposed on the light-emitting substrate in a light output direction of the light-emitting substrate, and a gap provided between adjacent scattering portions, as disclosed by Yabuta, applied to the device disclosed by Maekawa for the purposes of reducing glare seen by a view of the display device and of optimizing the gloss level of the antireflection film used in a predetermined application (see para. 34 of Yabuta: “the gloss level of the antiglare film attached substrate 1a is easily affected by the ratio of the area of the exposed portion 12 to the area of the second principal surface 25 viewed in plan. The gloss level of the antiglare film-attached substrate 1a is easily adjusted in a wide range by adjusting the area of the anti-glare film 20 in the above range.”).
Re: claims 2 and 16, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Maekawa further discloses that the scattering particles 16, 46 are dispersed within the adhesive 14 (Fig. 1) and the scattered particles are located below or protruding from the surface of the substrate away from the adhesive (protruding disclosed in Fig. 1).
Re: claims 3 and 17, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Yabuta further discloses that at least one of the plurality of scattering portions 20, 21, 22 is an island-shaped structure (shape disclosed in Figs. 1A, 2A; para. 60).
Re: claim 4, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Maekawa further discloses that the scattering particles comprise at least one of organic microspheres, inorganic microspheres, and inorganic nanoparticles (col. 4, lines 28-30 disclose microparticles having diameters in microns, and col. 6, lines 28-30 and col. 6, lines 18-21 disclose the particles being made from acryl-styrene copolymer and styrene, both known organic materials).
Re: claim 5, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maekawa further discloses that the adhesive is comprised of a (meth)acrylic resin or an epoxy resin (both resins disclosed in col. 5, lines 14-32). In addition, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Re: claims 6 and 20, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Maekawa further discloses that a content of the scattering particles 16, 46 in at least one of the plurality of scattering portions ranges from 5% to 50% by mass (col. 6, lines 34-36 disclose 5% - 30%, which overlaps the claimed range), and a haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 10% to 70% (col. 7, lines 14-17 disclose 10% - 40%, which overlaps the claimed range).
Re: claim 7, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Maekawa further discloses that the content of the scattering particles in at least one of the plurality of scattering portions is 20% by mass (col. 6, lines 34-36 disclose 5% - 30%), and the haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 30% to 40% (col. 7, lines 14-17 disclose 10% - 40%, which overlaps the claimed range).
Re: claim 8, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta further discloses that the heights of the plurality of scattering portions are different (Figs. 1A, 1B & paras. 42-43 disclose differing heights).
Re: claim 9, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta further discloses that heights of the scattering particles 16, 46 in the plurality of scattering portions are different (Figs. 1A, 1B & paras. 42-43 disclose differing heights).
Re: claim 10, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Maekawa further discloses that the scattering particles comprise at least one of polycarbonate, polystyrene, polymethyl methacrylate, polysiloxane, silica, titanium dioxide, silica, and barium sulfate (col. 6, line 21 discloses polycarbonate). In addition, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Re: claim 11, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta further discloses that light transmittance of the anti-reflective film is greater than 89% (Table 1 discloses that Examples 1-7 have light transmittance values ranging from 90.2% - 92.0%, which lies within the claimed range).
Re: claim 12, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Maekawa further discloses that a content of the scattering particles in at least one of the plurality of scattering portions ranges from 5% to 50% by mass (col. 6, lines 34-36 disclose 5% - 30% which overlaps the claimed range), a haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 10% to 70% (col. 7, lines 14-17 disclose 10% - 40%, which overlaps the claimed range), and Yabuta further discloses that light transmittance of the anti-reflective film is greater than 89% (Examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Table 1 disclose transmittance values of 90.2%, 90.9%, 90.8%, and 90.3%, which lies within the claimed range).
Re: claim 18, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 15, and Maekawa further discloses that the scattering particles comprise at least one of organic microspheres, inorganic microspheres, and inorganic nanoparticles (col. 4, lines 28-30 discloses microparticles having diameters in microns, and col. 6, lines 28-30 and col. 6, lines 18-21 disclose the particles being made from acryl-styrene copolymer and styrene, both known organic materials) and the adhesive 14 comprises a (meth)acrylic resin or an epoxy resin (both resins disclosed in col. 5, lines 13-32). In addition, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
Re: claim 21, Maekawa and Yabuta disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Maekawa further discloses that a portion of the plurality of scattering particles 16, 46 is in contact with the surface of the substrate 12 (Fig. 1), and another portion of the plurality of scattering particles is spaced apart from the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuta in view of Maekawa.
Re: claim 13, Yabuta discloses the steps of dispersing scattering particles 21 in a solvent to form a particle dispersion (para. 62 “A dispersion of the particles 21 may be used in preparation of the coating liquid. A dispersion medium of the dispersion of the particles 21 can be water or a liquid organic compound such as an alcohol”); adding an adhesive to the particle dispersion to form an anti-reflective glue (para. 62 “[t]he coating liquid contains the particles 21 and the precursor of the binder 22”); and coating the anti-reflective glue on a surface of a substrate (para. 62 “the antiglare film 20 is formed on the first principal surface 11 of the substrate 10, … using a coating liquid containing raw materials of the antiglare film 20” and para. 63 “A coating film is formed by applying the coating liquid to the first principle surface 11 of the substrate 10”), and curing the anti-reflective glue to form a plurality of scattering portions dispersed on the surface of the substrate (para. 63 “[t]he coating film is hardened by drying and heating to form the antiglare film 20”), wherein each of the plurality of scattering portions comprises the adhesive 22 and the scattering particles 21 dispersed in the adhesive to form the anti-reflective film 20 (Figs. 1A, 1B)
Yabuta does not explicitly disclose that in a thickness direction of the anti-reflective film, a thickness of the adhesive is greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of scattering particles.
Maekawa discloses that in a thickness direction of the anti-reflective film 10, a thickness of the adhesive 14 is greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of scattering particles 16, 46 (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 28-30 disclose that the particles have a diameter preferably between 2-4 microns and col. 5, lines 11-12 disclose that the thickness of the adhesive is preferably between 2-10 microns. Therefore, for adhesive thicknesses greater than 4 microns, the diameter of the particles is less than the thickness of the adhesive).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, in a thickness direction, a thickness of the adhesive be greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of scattering particles, as disclosed by Maekawa, applied to the method disclosed by Yabuta for the purpose of optimizing the surface roughness of the anti-reflective film for a predetermined application.
Re: claim 14, Yabuta and Maekawa disclose the limitations of claim 13, and Yabuta further discloses that the step of dispersing the scattering particles in the solvent to form the particle dispersion comprises: adding organic scattering particles or inorganic scattering particles 21 (para. 48 discloses organic or inorganic), a modifier (para. 62 discloses alkoxysilane), and a surfactant (para. 62 discloses alcohol) to a single solvent or a mixed solvent. While Yabuta does not explicitly disclose the step of heating and stirring at a temperature of 30 0C to 100 0C for 0.5 hour to 24 hours to obtain a uniformly dispersed particle dispersion, Yabuta does disclose the steps of heating, drying and coating (para. 63). The specific temperature and duration of the heating and stirring would depend upon the specific chemical content of the particle dispersion and the method used to apply the cured dispersion to the substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would have utilized known, routine techniques to heat and stir the dispersion according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T and Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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 at 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 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights