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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 12/7/2023 in which Applicant lists claims 1-15 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-15 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims of the various groups would be part of an overlapping search area and therefore there is no undue burden on the Examiner to search all of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of the Groups require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) and/or require evaluating the prior art found in various searches differently since the prior art applicable to one separately claimed invention would not necessarily be applicable to another separately claimed invention. Therefore, serious burden has been shown.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/8/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/7/2023, 1/22/2024, 11/1/2024, 11/14/2025 were considered.
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.
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 1-3, 13-14 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 states that “P is a mode of the height distribution of the surface of the concave/convex structure” but the claim and specification does not describe how the value for P is determined. Therefore, the value for P cannot be determined, and the metes-and-bounds of A/1.9 < P is unclear.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
The term “substantially the same heights” in claims 2-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Therefore, it is not clear what amount of difference in height would qualify as “substantially the same height” and the metes-and-bounds of claims 2-3 cannot be determined.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Kojima et al., CN 101522767 A, discloses a hard-coat film with a controlled surface roughness and desired kurtosis of the surface heigh distribution for balancing antireflection and hardness (see at least the abstract);
Hart et al., US 2017/0217831 A1, discloses patterned coatings with substantially flat faces with bimodal surface thickness, which may include particles and additional films, for achieving desired surface coverage and physical and optical characteristics (paras. [0029]-[0034], [0062]-[0063], [0067]-[0082]); and
Furuya et al., US 2007/0139783 A1, discloses an antiglare film for a display which may have various distributions of height for achieving desired properties (see at least the abstract, figs. 3-4, 9-21).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuguchi, JP 2003-114766 A, of record (hereafter Mizuguchi) in view of Ohyanagi et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0167019 A1 (hereafter Ohyanagi).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Mizuguchi discloses an optical laminate (see at least figure 5), comprising:
a transparent substrate (see at least figure 5, element 1, 2, 22, 9, and/or 71);
at least one hard-coat layer provided on the transparent substrate (see at least figure 5, element 72), the at least one hard-coat layer being made of a resin composition (see at least page 7, paragraph [0034]); and
at least one metal-oxide layer provided on the hard-coat layer (see at least figure 5, element 8), the at least one metal-oxide layer being made of a metal oxide (see at least page 17, paragraph [0084]), wherein
a concave/convex structure is formed on the metal-oxide-layer-side surface of the hard-coat layer (see at least element 72, pages 9-11, paragraphs [0044]-[0053]).
Mizuguchi further discloses that it is desirable for the concave/convex uneven structure to have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a desired range, such as 0.1um to 0.5um, and an average surface unevenness spacing Sm in a preferred range, for the purpose of having a desired antireflection effect while not affecting the visibility of displayed information (see at least paragraphs [0044]-[0053]).
Mizuguchi does not specifically disclose that a height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure satisfies formula (1):
A/1.9 < P (1)
wherein when a height B of a lowest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure is defined as 0, A is a height of the highest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure, and P is a mode of the height distribution of the surface of the concave/convex structure.
However, Ohyanagi is also drawn to an optical laminate having a substrate and a hard-coat layer having a concave/convex structure (see at least the abstract, figures 1C, 5C, 6, 15, and paragraphs [0060], [0217]-[0223], [0232]-[0240] and TABLE 1), wherein a height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure satisfies formula (1):
A/1.9 < P (1)
wherein when a height B of a lowest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure is defined as 0, A is a height of the highest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure, and P is a mode of the height distribution of the surface of the concave/convex structure (see at least the abstract, figure 15, and paragraphs [0060], [0217]-[0223], [0232]-[0240] and TABLE 1; 4.3/1.9 < 3.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical laminate of Mizuguchi to include the teachings of Ohyanagi so that a height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure satisfies formula (1):
A/1.9 < P (1)
wherein when a height B of a lowest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure is defined as 0, A is a height of the highest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure, and P is a mode of the height distribution of the surface of the concave/convex structure, for the purpose of achieving desired anti-glare properties while maintaining desired hardness (see at least paragraphs [0238]-[0240] of Ohyanagi).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the surface roughness and height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure to achieve desired antireflection/antiglare properties while also achieving desired optical and physical properties of the film, since it has been held that 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. One would have been motivated to have a height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure satisfy formula (1):
A/1.9 < P (1)
wherein when a height B of a lowest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure is defined as 0, A is a height of the highest point on the surface of the concave/convex structure, and P is a mode of the height distribution of the surface of the concave/convex structure, for the purpose of having a desired antireflection effect while not affecting the visibility of displayed information (e.g. external haze; see at least paragraphs [0044]-[0053] of Mizuguchi) and/or achieving desired anti-glare properties while maintaining desired hardness (see at least paragraphs [0238]-[0240] of Ohyanagi). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Mizuguchi in view of Ohyanagi discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein tops of a plurality of convex portions constituting the concave/convex structure of the hard-coat layer have substantially the same heights as each other (see at least figure 5, element 8 and at least paragraphs [0044]-[0053] of Mizuguchi; figure 15, TABLE 1 and Δh of Sample 4 of Ohyanagi; and the combination of Mizuguchi and Ohyanagi satisfying formula (1) as set forth above).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Mizuguchi in view of Ohyanagi discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Mizuguchi further discloses an outermost surface of the optical laminate is an uneven surface following the shape of the concave/convex structure of the hard-coat layer (see at least figure 5, element 18, paragraph [0064] of Mizuguchi).
Mizuguchi does not specifically disclose that tops of a plurality of convex portions constituting the uneven surface have substantially the same heights.
Mizuguchi further discloses that it is desirable for the concave/convex uneven structure to have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra in a desired range, such as 0.1um to 0.5um, and an average surface unevenness spacing Sm in a preferred range, for the purpose of having a desired antireflection effect while not affecting the visibility of displayed information (see at least paragraphs [0044]-[0053]).
Additionally, Ohyanagi is also drawn to an optical laminate having a substrate and a hard-coat layer having a concave/convex structure (see at least the abstract, figures 1C, 5C, 6, 15, and paragraphs [0060], [0217]-[0223], [0232]-[0240] and TABLE 1), wherein a difference between projection height with the maximum frequency and the highest projection height on the substrate surface is 0.9 (see at least the abstract, figure 15, TABLE 1, and Δh of Sample 4 of Ohyanagi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical laminate of Mizuguchi in view of Ohyanagi to include the further teachings of Ohyanagi so tops of a plurality of convex portions constituting the uneven surface have substantially the same heights, for the purpose of achieving desired anti-glare properties while maintaining desired hardness (see at least paragraphs [0238]-[0240] of Ohyanagi).
Finally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the surface roughness and height distribution of a surface of the concave/convex structure to achieve desired antireflection/antiglare properties while also achieving desired optical and physical properties of the film, since it has been held that 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. One would have been motivated to have tops of a plurality of convex portions constituting the uneven surface have substantially the same heights, for the purpose of having a desired antireflection effect while not affecting the visibility of displayed information (e.g. external haze; see at least paragraphs [0044]-[0053] of Mizuguchi) and/or achieving desired anti-glare properties while maintaining desired hardness (see at least paragraphs [0238]-[0240] of Ohyanagi). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Mizuguchi in view of Ohyanagi discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a polarizer comprising the optical laminae of claim 1 (see at least figure 5, element 2, paragraph [0029] of Mizuguchi).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Mizuguchi in view of Ohyanagi discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an image display device comprising the optical laminate of claim 1 (see at least figure 5, paragraphs [0021], [0043] of Mizuguchi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/6/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872