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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0015926 to Iwata et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Iwata discloses an antiglare layer formed as follows (described in paragraphs [0154]–[0160] and [0163] of Iwata, reproduced below):
Example 1
Preparation of Composition 1 for Forming Antiglare Layer
[0154] A composition was prepared by adequately mixing the following materials. This composition was filtrated with a polypropylene filter having a pore size of 30 µm to prepare a composition 1 for forming an antiglare layer.
Ultra Violet Curable Resin:
[0155] Pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA) (refractive index 1.51) 98.8 parts by weight
[0156] Cellulose acetate propionate (molecular weight 50000) 1.2 parts by weight
Photocuring Initiator:
[0157] Irgacure 184 (produced by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Inc.) 5.0 parts by weight
[0158] Irgacure 907 (produced by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Inc.) 1.0 part by weight
Fine Particles (Inorganic Beads):
[0159] Nonspherical silica A (average particle size 2.0 µm) 1.00 parts by weight
[0160] Nonspherical silica B (average particle size 1.2 µm) 5.00 parts by weight
Fine Particles (Organic Particles)
[0163] A composition 3 for forming an antiglare layer was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1 except for using a mixture of acrylic beads (component PMMA, average particle diameter 3.5 µm) 2.00 parts by weight and styrene beads (average particle diameter 3.5 µm) 4.00 parts by weight in place of the fine particles (organic particles) in Example 1.
This third Example of Iwata includes a composition that is similar to and is prepared in a method that corresponds to Applicant’s description of the third, fourth, and/or sixth examples in Applicant’s specification (e.g., starting in paragraph [0393] of Applicant’s specification). This third Example of Iwata also achieves satisfactory dazzle prevention, antiglare properties, and antifogging (Table 2 of Iwata). The third, fourth, and/or sixth examples in Applicant’s specification meet the recited ranges in Claim 1 (e.g., Table 1 of Applicant’s specification). Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume prima facia that, because of the similarity of the composition and preparation of the antiglare layer of the third Example of Iwata to those in the present specification, Iwata would have rendered obvious an anti-glare film comprising an anti-glare layer, the anti-glare film having an uneven surface, wherein for an amplitude spectrum of elevation of the uneven surface, when a sum of amplitudes corresponding to spatial frequencies of 0.005 μm−1, 0.010 μm−1, and 0.015 μm−1 is defined as AM1 and an amplitude at a spatial frequency of 0.300 μm−1 is defined as AM2, AM1 is more than 0.4000 μm and 1.0000 μm or less, and AM2 is 0.0050 μm or more and 0.0500 μm or less (e.g., MPEP § 2144).
Regarding Claim 2, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein AM1/AM2 is 1.0 or more and 90.0 or less (based on the similarities of the third Example of Iwata to Applicant’s examples 3, 4, and 6, Table 1 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 3, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein when a root mean square inclination of the uneven surface is defined as Δq and a root mean square wavelength of the uneven surface is defined as λq, Δq is 0.250 μm/μm or more and λq is 17.000 μm or less (based on the similarities of the third Example of Iwata to Applicant’s examples 3, 4, and 6, Table 2 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 4, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein when a root mean roughness of the uneven surface is defined as Rq, Rq is 0.300 μm or more (based on the similarities of the third Example of Iwata to Applicant’s examples 3, 4, and 6, Table 2 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwata would have rendered obvious having a haze of 40% or more and 98% or less according to JIS K7136:2000 (e.g., paragraph [0114], teaching overlapping range).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein the anti-glare layer contains a binder resin and particles (paragraphs [0115] and [0154]–[0163]).
Regarding Claim 7, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein when a thickness of the anti-glare layer is defined as T and an average particle size of the particles is defined as D, D/T is 0.20 or more and 0.96 or less (e.g., average particle 1.2–3.5 µm, thickness preferably 2–6 µm, yielding results overlapping the claimed range, paragraph [0059] and [0163]).
Regarding Claim 8, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein the particles are contained in an amount of 10 parts by mass or more and 200 parts by mass or less based on 100 parts by mass of the binder resin (e.g., overlapping or near range taught paragraphs [0154]–[0163]).
Regarding Claim 9, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein the particles are inorganic particles (paragraphs [0154]–[0163]).
Regarding Claim 10, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein the anti-glare layer further comprises organic particles (paragraphs [0154]–[0163]).
Regarding Claim 11, Iwata would have rendered obvious wherein the binder resin comprises a cured product of an ionizing radiation-curable resin composition and a thermoplastic resin (paragraphs [0043]–[0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, Iwata would have rendered obvious an anti-reflection layer on the anti-glare layer, a surface of the anti-reflection layer being the uneven surface (e.g., paragraph [0096], low refractive index layer 31, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Iwata would have rendered obvious a polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer; a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer; and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer, wherein at least one of the first transparent protective plate and the second transparent protective plate is the anti-glare film according to claim 1, and a surface opposite to the uneven surface of the anti-glare film and the polarizer are disposed so as to face each other (paragraph [0133]).
Regarding Claim 14, Iwata would have rendered obvious a surface plate for an image display device, the surface plate comprising: a resin plate or a glass plate; and a protective film bonded to the resin plate or the glass plate, wherein the protective film is the anti-glare film according to claim 1, and a surface opposite to the uneven surface of the anti-glare film and the resin plate or the glass plate are disposed so as to face each other (paragraph [0135]).
Regarding Claim 15, Iwata would have rendered obvious an image display panel comprising: a display element; and an optical film disposed on a light-emitting surface side of the display element, wherein the image display panel comprises the anti-glare film according to claim 1 as the optical film, and the anti-glare film is disposed so that a surface of the anti-glare film on the uneven surface side is disposed so as to face the opposite side to the display element (paragraph [0135]).
Regarding Claim 16, Iwata would have rendered obvious an image display device comprising the image display panel according to claim 15, wherein the anti-glare film is disposed on an outermost surface (paragraph [0135]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see discussion of other art in the Written Opinion for PCT/JP2022/040049 cited in Applicant’s June 4, 2024, IDS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights