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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (US 2021/0388211).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses an anti-glare film, comprising: a transparent substrate; and an anti-glare layer, wherein the anti-glare layer comprises an acrylic binder resin, a acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent and a plurality of silica nanoparticles; wherein part of the silica nanoparticles are flocculated into micro-floccules, and each of the micro-floccules has an average secondary particle size ranging between 1,600 nm and 3,300 nm (claim 1) wherein the haze of the anti-glare film is less than 3% (0008), wherein the arithmetic mean height of surface roughness (Sa) of the anti-glare film is ranging between 0.02 μm and 0.25 μm, the maximum height of surface roughness (Sz) thereof is ranging between 0.25 μm and 2.50 μm, the average roughness of centerline (Ra) thereof is ranging between 0.01 μm and 0.30 μm, the height of total roughness (Ry) is ranging between 0.10 μm and 0.90 μm, the average peak spacing of total roughness (RSm) thereof is ranging between 20 μm and 200 μm, and the slope of root mean square of total roughness (Rdq) thereof is ranging between 0.80° and 7.50° (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the average molecular weight of the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent measured by a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is ranging between 200 and 6,000 and the average ethylene oxide (EO) unit thereof is ranging between 1 and 40 (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 3, wherein the average molecular weight of the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent measured by a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is ranging between 200 and 4,500 and the average ethylene oxide (EO) unit thereof is ranging between 1 and 35 (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 3, wherein the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent is a compound formed by the polymerization of one or more monofunctional or multifunctional unsaturated monomers with vinyl groups or (meth)acrylic groups and one or more polyether monomers of which represented by the following formula (I) as presently claimed wherein, R.sub.1 is an hydrogen or a methyl-group; R.sub.2 is an hydrogen, a C.sub.1 to C.sub.10 hydrocarbyl-group, phenyl-group or (meth)acryloyl-group, a is 1 or an integer greater than 1, b is 0 or an integer greater than 0, and the content of the polyether monomers represented by formula (I) is ranging between 0.1 mole percentage and 60 mole percentage in the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the amount of the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent is ranging between 0.01 parts and 8 parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of the acrylic binder resin (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the amount of the silica nanoparticles is ranging between 0.5 parts and 12 parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of the acrylic binder resin (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the silica nanoparticles to the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent is ranging between 0.5 and 100 (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the average primary particle diameter of each of the silica nanoparticles is ranging between 5 nm and 150 nm (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the acrylic binder resin comprises a (meth)acrylate composition and a initiator, wherein the (meth)acrylate composition comprising; 35 to 50 parts by weight of the polyurethane (meth)acrylate oligomer with a functionality of 6 to 15; 12 to 20 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of 3 to 6; and 1.5 to 12 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of less than 3 (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 10, wherein the (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of 6 to 15 is an aliphatic polyurethane (meth)acrylate oligomer (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 10, wherein the (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of 3 to 6 is selected from one of the group consisted of pentaerythritol tetra(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol penta(meth)acrylate (DPP(M)A), dipentaerythritol hexa(meth)acrylate (DPH(M)A), trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (TMPT(M)A), ditrimethylolpropane tetra(meth)acrylate (DTMPT(M)A) and pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate (PET(M)A), or combinations thereof (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 10, wherein the polyurethane (meth)acrylate oligomer with a functionality of less than 3 is selected from one of 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate (2-EH(M)A), 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate (2-HE(M)A), 3-hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate (3-HP(M)A), 4-hydroxybutyl (meth)acrylate (4-HB(M)A), 2-butoxyethyl (meth)acrylate, 1,6-hexanediol di(meth)acrylate (HDD(M)A), cyclic trimethylolpropane formal (meth)acrylate (CTF(M)A), 2-phenoxyethyl (meth)acrylate (PHE(M)A), tetrahydrofurfuryl (meth)acrylate (THF(M)A), lauryl (meth)acrylate (L(M)A), diethylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (DEGD(M)A), dipropylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (DPGD(M)A), tripropylene glycol di(meth)acrylate (TPGD(M)A) and isobornyl (meth)acrylate (IBO(M)A), or combinations thereof (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 10, wherein the initiator is selected from one of the group consisted of acetophenones-based initiator, diphenylketones-based initiator, propiophenones-based initiator, benzophenones-based initiator, bifunctional α-hydroxyketones-based initiator and acylphosphine oxides-based initiator, or combinations thereof (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, Fan discloses an anti-glare film, comprising: a transparent substrate; and an anti-glare layer, wherein the anti-glare layer comprises an acrylic binder resin, a acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent, a plurality of silica nanoparticles and a plurality of organic particles; wherein part of the silica nanoparticles are flocculated into micro-floccules, and each of the micro-floccules has an average secondary particle size ranging between 1,600 nm and 3,300 nm (claim 15), wherein the haze of the anti-glare film is less than 3% (0008), wherein the arithmetic mean height of surface roughness (Sa) of the anti-glare film is ranging between 0.02 μm and 0.25 μm, the maximum height of surface roughness (Sz) thereof is ranging between 0.25 μm and 2.50 μm, the average roughness of centerline (Ra) thereof is ranging between 0.01 μm and 0.30 μm, the height of total roughness (Ry) is ranging between 0.10 μm and 0.90 μm, the average peak spacing of total roughness (RSm) thereof is ranging between 20 μm and 200 μm, and the slope of root mean square of total roughness (Rdq) thereof is ranging between 0.80° and 7.50° (claim 2).
Regarding claim 16, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 15, wherein the diameter of each of the organic particles is ranging between 0.5 μm and 6 μm (claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 15, wherein the refractivity of each of the organic particles is ranging between 1.4 and 1.6 (claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 15, wherein the usage amount of the organic particles is 0.5 parts and 15 parts by weight per hundred parts by weight of acrylic binder resin (claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, Fan discloses the anti-glare film as claimed in claim 15, wherein the organic particles is selected from one of the group consisted of polymethyl methacrylate resin particles, polystyrene resin particles, styrene-methyl methacrylate copolymer particles, polyethylene resin particles, epoxy resin particles, polysiloxane resin particles, polyvinylidene fluoride resin particles and polyvinyl fluoride resin particles, or combinations thereof (claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, Fan discloses the polarizer, comprising: a polarizing element; and an anti-glare film as claimed in claim 1 formed on a surface of the polarizing element (claim 20).
Regarding claim 21, Fan discloses a polarizer, comprising: a polarizing element; and an anti-glare film as claimed in claim 15 formed on a surface of the polarizing element (claim 21).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109337106 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0004214 A1) and in view of the evidence of Chembridge (Chembridge International Corp. Chemcure-481).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Chen discloses a PMMA substrate with light transmission rate of more than 90%, i.e. transparent substrate, (para 0008, 0038) with a hard-coat optical film with anti-glare properties comprising acrylic binder, silica, organic particles, and acrylate based leveling agent (paras 0009, 0016, 0027). From example 9, the silica includes that known under the tradename MEK-5630X (identical to that used in Example 6 of the present invention) and the acrylate-based leveling agent includes that known under the tradename BYK-UV3535 (identical to the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent used in Example 6 of the present invention).
Chen further discloses the hard coat optical film with anti-glare properties having an Ra of 0.03-0.09 microns, Ry of 0.25-0.60 microns, Sm (i.e. RSm) of 20-50 microns, and Pdq (i.e. Rdq) of 0.5-1.6° (paras 0028, 0059).
Chen does not disclose a haze value as claimed. Chen does disclose the ten-point roughness height (Rz) should be between 0.1 and 0.5 microns (para 0029).
Kim discloses an antireflection film (abstract) comprising silica particles (para 0018). Kim further discloses an Rz of 0.05 to 0.2 microns yields a total haze of 5% or less, specifically 3% or less, which realizes low reflectance and high light transmittance and prevents deterioration of visibility such as a decrease in contrast ratio (paras 0028-0031).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Chen to incorporate the teachings of Kim to produce the film wherein the Rz is adjusted to yield a haze value of 5% or less, specifically 3% or less. Doing so would realize low reflectance and high light transmittance and prevent deterioration of visibility such as a decrease in contrast ratio.
While Chen in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose the silica particles being flocculated into micro-floccules as claimed, given that Chen in view of Kim discloses anti-glare layer identical to that presently claimed, it would necessarily form floccules having secondary particle size as claimed.
While Chen in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose Sa and Sz as claimed, given that Chen in view of Kim discloses anti-glare layer identical to that presently claimed, and discloses the other roughness values as presently claimed, the anti-glare layer would inherently have Sa and Sz as presently claimed.
Regarding Claims 3-5, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. The hard coat optical film with antiglare properties comprises acrylate-based leveling agent known under the tradename BYK-UV3535 (para 0103). Since this is identical to the acrylate-ether-group-containing surface active agent used in Example 6 of the present invention, it would inherently possess the average molecular weight, average ethylene oxide unit, and structure as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the leveling agent is used in amount of 5-20 parts per 100 parts binder (para 0053).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Chen further discloses 5.45 parts by weight of reactive silica nanoparticle dispersion MEZK-5630X, which has a solids content of 30%, and 300 parts hard coating solution of Example 4, which comprises 37% acrylic binder (61.5 total parts acrylates/165 total parts components) (paras 0077 and 0103). Therefore Example 9 comprises 1.47 parts reactive silica per 100 parts acrylic binder ((5.45*30%)*100/(300*37%)).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above, wherein given that Chen discloses silica nanoparticles 5.45 parts by weight and 5-20 parts of leveling agent as explained above, it is clear that the ratio of silica to the acrylate ether group containing surface active would overlap the presently claimed value.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the silica has a primary average particle size of 5-30 nm (para 0056).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Chen further discloses the hard coat film comprises 35-50 parts aliphatic polyurethane (meth)acrylate oligomer with a functionality of 6-15, 12-20 parts (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of 6 to 15, 1.5-12 parts of a (meth)acrylate monomer with a functionality of less than 3 (paras 0010, 0011) and a initiator (para 0016).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 10 above. Chen further discloses the (meth)acrylate with functionality of 3-6 includes pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA) and dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate (DPHA) (para 0012).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 10 above. Chen further discloses the (meth)acrylate with functionality of less than 3 is 2-phenoxyethyl acrylate (PHEA) (para 0013).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 10 above. Chen further discloses the photoinitiator is Chemcure-481 (para 0077), which is the same initiator used in the present invention (para 0066). According to the evidence of Chembridge, Chemcure-481 is hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone and is a bifunctional α-hydroxyketone-based initiator.
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 15 above. Chen further discloses the organic particles have diameter of 1-5 microns (para 0057).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 15 above. Chen further discloses the organic particles have refractive index of 1.55 (para 0103).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 15 above. Chen further discloses the organic particles are present in an amount of 2.95 parts per 100 parts acrylic resin ((3.27*100)/(300*37%) (paras 0077, 0103).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 15 above. Chen further discloses the organic particles are styrene-methyl methacrylate copolymer particles (para 0057).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Chen in view of Kim discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claims 1 and 15 above. Chen further discloses a polarizer comprising a polarizing element and the hard coat optical film with anti-glare properties (para 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that this applicant is a continuation of US 2021/0388211. However, it is noted that the US 2021/0388211 is not qualified as a parent application for the reason listed in the communication sent on 03/27/2024.
Applicant filed TD to overcome 102(a)(1) rejection. However, it is noted that TD is not a way to overcome 102(a)(1) based rejection.
Applicant argues that Chen has ten point roughness height ranging between 0.1 to 0.5 microns while Kim teaches ten point average roughness is 0.05 to 0.2 microns. However, it is noted that ten point roughness of Chen and Kim does overlap with each other, i.e. 0.1 to 0.2. Also, the rejection is based on obviousness.
Applicant argues that each of the antireflection antiglare hard coat films of examples 9-12 of Chen has an antiglare hard coat layers with ten point roughness more than 0.2 microns and haze greater than 3%. However, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 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 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights