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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 11/19/25. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino JP_2002236214_A (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claim 1, Sugino discloses a polarizing film (corresponds to claimed resin layer) made from a polyvinyl alcohol resin (Abstract, paragraph 0019) and a protective film (corresponds to claimed second resin layer) attached to it (paragraph 0009) that is made of a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0030) and can function as a light diffusion layer (corresponds to claimed light diffusion resin layer) (paragraphs 0032, 0035) and can also contain particles (corresponds to claimed light diffusions particles) (paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0035). Furthermore, in Example 1, Sugino discloses a polyvinyl alcohol resin polarizing film (corresponds to claimed first resin layer) having a final thickness of 30 microns (paragraph 0063) with two 80 micron thick triacetyl cellulose (corresponds to claimed thermoplastic resin) protective films (corresponds to claimed second resin layer) on each side thereof (paragraph 0063). In this example, the total thickness of the entire resin film is 190 microns, therefore the central position of the film would be at the midpoint of the entire resin film at 95 microns, which would be situated in the polyvinyl alcohol resin polarizing film (corresponds to claimed first resin layer). As such, the thick triacetyl cellulose protective film (corresponds to claimed second resin layer) would be in a non-central position. Furthermore, if the halfpoint of the entire resin film is at 95 microns (“C1”), and a center of the triacetyl cellulose protective film (corresponds to claimed second resin layer) is at 40 microns, then the “X” would be 55 microns (40 + 15), thereby meeting the claimed range. Although all of these limitations have not been disclosed in a single, exemplified embodiment, it would nevertheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have tried other uses for said protective film (corresponds to claimed second resin layer) such as using it as a light diffusing layer containing particles, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to further the scope of the utility of its invention to other suggested embodiments.
2. Regarding Claim 2, Sugino discloses “C2” being at the 40-micron point as said above. (40/190)*100= 21%.
3. Regarding Claim 3, although Sugino does not explicitly disclose the claimed concentration of its particles, the Examiner respectfully submits that it will largely depend upon the desired light diffusion of the end-product.
4. Regarding Claim 5, Sugino discloses its thickness can range from as low as 5 microns to 80 microns (paragraph 0031); which would then meet the claimed range.
5. Regarding Claims 8 and 9, these properties would be inherently expected given that Sugino discloses all of the claimed limitations.
6. Regarding Claim 10, Sugino discloses an acrylic (corresponds to thermoplastic resin) adhesive layer on said protective film (paragraph 0056) which would result in having a three or more resin layer while said light-diffusion protective film layer would be in between.
7. Regarding Claims 13-15, Sugino discloses using its polarizing film between substrates for an LCD display device (screen) (paragraph 0004) wherein said substrate is known to be made from glass (paragraph 0004). This setup would inherently result in the afore-described polarizing film being an “interlayer”.
Claim 4 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino JP_2002236214_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Yamaki EP_3251831_A1.
8. Regarding Claim 4, Sugino discloses using alumina particles (paragraph 0034).
9. Yamaki discloses a transparent screen comprising a transparent laminate (Abstract) having a resin film having a light diffusing function (paragraph 0025) through the use of particles, such as silver, titanium, aluminum, and diamond (paragraph 0035) that can be 0.1 nanometer (paragraph 0034).
10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the light diffusing particles, of Sugino, such as its use of aluminum (paragraph 0105), by trying the particles, of Yamaki, such as silver, titanium, and diamond nanoparticles. Given that Yamaki discloses equivalence between aluminum and the aforementioned materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying other substitutes suggested in prior art.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino JP_2002236214_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1 and 10, and in view of Fukatani USPA_20180282598_A1.
11. Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 12, Sugino does not disclose its aforementioned layers being made form polyvinyl acetal resin or containing plastifizers.
12. Fukatani discloses that layers between a glass sheet and polarizing film can comprise polyvinyl acetal resin and a plasticizer useable in a touch panel (Abstract) that leads to advantageous physical properties (paragraphs 0006, 0008).
13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thermoplastic material used in the layers, of Sugino, by trying the specific use of polyvinyl acetal resins and plasticizer, of Fukatani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so to obtain those properties (paragraph 0007).
14. Regarding Claim 11, Sugino in view of Fukatani suggests the amount of plasticizer will vary based on the degree of residual stress needed (Fukatani paragraph 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 21, 2026