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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-221 and 25, in the reply filed on 12 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 August 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term "low-refractive index member" in claim 7 is a relative term which renders (as well as claims 8 and 9 which depend from claim 7) the claim indefinite. The term "low-refractive index member" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term renders the refractive index of the member indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kakeya (WO 2019/163829).
Note: since WO 2019/163829 was not published in the English language, citations made to Kakeya in this action will reference US 2021/0053330, which is the published US national stage application of WO 2019/163829.
Kakeya is directed to a layered product having an anti-reflection film comprising a base material layer and a low-refractive index layer having a refractive index that is lower than that of the base material layer (paragraph 0001). The antireflection film comprises a base material layer, a hard coat layer on a surface of the base material layer, with low and high refractive index layers on the hard coat layer (paragraph 0044). The base material layer may be composed of layers (paragraph 0055).
The base material layer has a preferred refractive index of 1.49 to 1.65 (paragraph 0054) and a particularly preferred thickness of 100 to 500 mm (paragraph 0055), while the difference between the refractive index of the base material and that of the hard coat is preferably 0.04 or less (paragraph 0145).
The low-refractive index layer includes a polymer of urethane acrylate and a low-refractive index member (paragraph 0045). The polymer of urethane acrylate is formed from a urethane acrylate and a (meth)acrylate, wherein the urethane acrylate may be one containing fluorine (paragraph 0060) but is not limited to fluorine-containing urethane acrylates (paragraph 0069). The urethane acrylate that does not contain fluorine is a polymer of an isocyanate compound and an acrylate compound (paragraph 0070). One of the three cited isocyanate compounds, xylylene diisocyanate, is aromatic (paragraph 0071). The cited acrylate compounds, hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate, have both hydroxyl and (meth)acryloyl functional groups (paragraph 0072). Since all the isocyanates are diisocyanates, the resulting urethane acrylate would have between two (when both acrylates reacting with the diisocyanate are hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate) and six (when both acrylates reacting with the diisocyanate are pentaerythritol triacrylate) (meth)acryloyl groups per molecule. The low-refractive index member is preferably hollow silica (paragraph 0081). Iin the embodiments of the Examples, the low-refractive index layers contain ratio of resin to hollow silica of 35:65 wt% (paragraph 0171) and a ratio of urethane acrylate to (meth)acrylate of 90:10 (paragraph 0170). The low-refractive index layer may also contain a photoinitiator and a fluorine-based leveling agent (paragraph 0083). The low-refractive index layer has a preferred refractive index of 1.31 to 1.40 (paragraph 0078) and a preferred thickness of 10 to 300 nm (paragraph 0085).
The antireflection film may further contain another layer between the base material and the low-refractive index layer (paragraph 0086), preferably a high-refractive index layer (paragraph 0088). The high-refractive index layer preferably includes a polymer including a urethane (meth)acrylate and a (meth)acrylate, wherein the urethane (meth)acrylate is derived from a fluorene-based diol, an isocyanate, and a (meth)acrylate (paragraph 0089). The high-refractive index layer preferably has a refractive index of 1.68 to 1.75 (paragraph 0122) and a particularly preferred thickness of 130 to 170 nm (paragraph 0131).
In the embodiment of Example 4, a polycarbonate layer having a thickness of 300 mm and a refractive index of 1.584 is used as the base material layer (paragraphs 0178-0179).
While Kakeya do not exemplify an embodiment wherein the urethane acrylate is formed from an aromatic isocyanate, three isocyanates are explicitly taught paragraph 0071, one of which is aromatic. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have at once envisaged a urethane acrylate formed from an aromatic isocyanate based on the explicit recitation of xylylene diisocyanate and the limited number (two) of other explicitly recited isocyanates. Alternatively, it would have required no more than ordinary skill in the art to construct the urethane acrylate from xylylene diisocyanate based on the explicit teaching that xylylene diisocyanate may be used as the isocyanate of the urethane acrylate.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of this claim are satisfied by employing only pentaerythritol triacrylate as the acrylate for forming the urethane acrylate.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Example 5 of Kakeya illustrates an embodiment wherein a hard coat is applied over a base material layer, a high-refractive index layer is applied over the hard coat, and a low-refractive index layer is applied over the high-refractive index layer.
Regarding claim 22, the low-refractive index layer of Kakeya is taught as satisfying the limitations of this claim (paragraph 0025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
1 claim 22 was inadvertently omitted from Group I in the Office action mailed 17 June 2026.
Prosecution Insights