Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/542,849

ANTI-REFLECTIVE FILMS, METHODS FOR PREPARING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY PANELS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
MEDICH, ANGELA MARGOT
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shenzhen China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
373 granted / 565 resolved
-2.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
594
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 565 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabuta (US 20210255364). Re: claim 1, Yabuta discloses a substrate 10 (Fig. 1B); and a plurality of scattering portions 20, 21, 22 (Figs. 1A, 1B) dispersed on a surface of the substrate (dispersion disclosed in figs. 1A, 1B), wherein a gap 12 is provided between adjacent scattering portions (provision disclosed in Figs. 1A, 1B), and each of the plurality of scattering portions comprises an adhesive 22 (para. 48) and a plurality of scattering particles 21 dispersed in the adhesive (dispersion disclosed in Figs. 1A, 1B). Re: claim, 15, Yabuta discloses a display panel (para. 57) comprising a light-emitting substrate (screen disclosed in para. 57); and 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), wherein the anti-reflective film comprises: a substrate 10; and a plurality of scattering portions 21, 22 dispersed on a surface of the substrate (Figs. 1A, 1B), wherein a gap 12 is provided between adjacent scattering portions (Figs. 1A, 1B), and each of the plurality of scattering portions comprises an adhesive 22 and a plurality of scattering particles 21 dispersed in the adhesive (Figs. 1A, 1B). Re: claims 2 and 16, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Yabuta further discloses that the scattering particles 21 are dispersed within the adhesive 22 (dispersion disclosed in Figs. 1A, 1B), and the scattered particles are located below or protruding from the surface of the substrate 10 away from the adhesive (location & protrusion disclosed in Fig. 1B). Re: claims 3 and 17, Yabuta discloses 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: claims 4 and 18, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Yabuta further discloses that the scattering particles comprise at least one of organic microspheres, inorganic microspheres, and inorganic nanoparticles (para. 42 discloses the particles having a diameter between 0.5 – 15 µm; para. 48 discloses organic and/or inorganic). Re: claims 6 and 20, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively, and Yabuta 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 (Examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Table 2 disclose 10%, 7%, 5.5%, and 10% respectively), and a haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 10% to 70% (Examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Table 1 disclose 24.4%, 17.9%, 17.0%, and 27.8 % respectively). Re: claim 8, Yabuta discloses 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, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta further discloses that heights of the scattering particles in the plurality of scattering portions are different (Figs. 1A, 1B & paras. 42-43 disclose differing heights). Re: claim 10, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta further discloses that the scattering particles comprise at least one of polycarbonate, polystyrene, polymethyl methacrylate, polysiloxane, silica, titanium dioxide, silica, and barium sulfate (para. 21 discloses silica). Re: claim 11, Yabuta discloses 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, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yabuta 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 (Examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Table 2 disclose 10%, 7%, 5.5%, and 10% respectively), a haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 10% to 70% (Examples 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Table 1 disclose 24.4%, 17.9%, 17.0%, and 27.8 % respectively), and 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 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) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuta. Re: claims 5 and 19, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 15, respectively, and while Yabuta does disclose that the adhesive 22 is comprised of an organic material (para. 48), Yabuta does not explicitly disclose that the organic material comprises a (meth)acrylic resin or an epoxy resin. However, 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 7, Yabuta discloses the limitations of claim 1, and while Yabuta does not explicitly disclose that the content of the scattering particles in at least one of the plurality of scattering portions is 20% by mass, and the haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 30% to 40%, Yabuta does disclose a percentage of mass ranging from 1.8% – 10.0 % (Table 2) and a haze ranging from 8.2% - 27.8% (Table 1). 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 the range of the scattering particles in at least one of the plurality of scattering portions is 20% by mass and the haze of the anti-reflective film ranges from 30% to 40% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05). Re: claim 14, Yabuta discloses 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 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-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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601894
OPTICAL ARRANGEMENT WITH AN F-THETA LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599290
OPTICAL CONNECTOR AND MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596214
POLARIZING PLATE AND OPTICAL DISPLAY APPARATUS COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578549
OPTICAL IMAGNING LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578611
ELECTRONIC PAPER DISPLAY DEVICES AND MANUFACTURING METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+20.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 565 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month