DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “in each of the small regions, brightness of each pixel in each of the small regions is divided by an average brightness of all pixels in each of the small regions to obtain a corrected brightness” (line 13-15) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. As each of the small regions has 64 pixels (see line 12-13, 8 x 8 pixels), there are 64 brightnesses corresponding to each pixel in each of the small regions. It is unclear that which one of the 64 brightnesses is used to obtain the corrected brightness.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 20200158922).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi teaches an anti-glare film (abstract; fig. 1) comprising
an anti-glare layer (fig. 1, 3 -- antiglare layer),
the anti-glare film having an uneven surface (¶[0041], line 1-10, by the recesses and protrusions of the surface of the antiglare layer 3; ¶[0161], line 1-9, an antiglare layer 33 having a concave-convex shape formed on the surface is obtained);
wherein a 60
°
-specular glossiness measured from the uneven surface side is 30.0 or less (¶[0203], Table 1, 60 degree gloss (%) for Example 1-5).
(measurement of the coefficient of variation of brightness)
the anti-glare film is laminated with a surface opposite to the uneven surface of the anti- glare film onto an image display device having a display element having a pixel density of 424 ppi (fig. 1, 3, 16a- display); an image of the image display device is displayed in green in a dark room, and the image is photographed with a CCD camera from the anti-glare film side to obtain an image data, wherein the CCD camera used has a pixel pitch of 5.5 pm x 5.5 pm and the number of pixels of 16 million pixels, and a distance from a surface of the display element to an incident pupil of a camera lens contained in the CCD camera is 500 mm; from the obtained image data, a region a with 128 x 128 pixels is extracted; the region a is subdivided into regions each with 8 x 8 pixels to obtain 256 small regions; in each of the small regions, brightness of each pixel in each of the small regions is divided by an average brightness of all pixels in each of the small regions to obtain a corrected brightness; and a standard deviation of the corrected brightness in the 256 small regions is divided by an average value of the corrected brightness in the 256 small regions to calculate a coefficient of variation of the brightness (--- this portion of claim is of a product-by-process claim (anti-glare film/ measurement process), for a product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
But Hayashi does not specifically disclose that wherein a coefficient of variation of brightness is 0.0400 or less.
However, Hayashi teaches that “the value of the standard deviation of the luminance distribution of the display indicates a degree of variation of brightness” and “configuring the antiglare layer having the standard deviation set to a value in a range from 0 to 6” (¶[0012], line 1-9); --- when the standard deviation set to a value close to zero; the coefficient of variation of brightness should be close to zero as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-glare film of Hayashi to have a coefficient of variation of brightness is 0.0400 or less, for a purpose to provide an antiglare film that can suppress the sparkle of a display while having favorable antiglare property and has a high degree of design freedom in terms of transmission image clarity, by quantitatively evaluating and designing the sparkle of the display (¶[0010], line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 1, wherein a 20°-specular glossiness measured from the uneven surface side is 6.0 or less. (---this portion of claim is of a functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Hayashi is same to that recited in the claim 1, then it is expected that a function of glossiness provided by Hayashi has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 1, 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,
Δ
q is 0.250 µm/µm or more and λq is 17.000 µm or less (¶[0041], line 1-10, by the recesses and protrusions of the surface of the antiglare layer 3; ¶[0161], line 1-9, an antiglare layer 33 having a concave-convex shape formed on the surface is obtained; ---further, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 5, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 1, having a haze of 40% or more and 98% or less according to JIS K7136:2000 (¶[0203], Table 1, Haze (%) for Example 1-5)..
Regarding Claim 6, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 1, wherein the anti-glare layer contains a binder resin and particles having an average particle size of 1.0 µm or more and 10.0 µm or less (¶[0060], line 1-5, The antiglare layer 3 may include a plurality of microparticles (fillers) dispersed in a matrix resin. The microparticles may be organic microparticles and/or inorganic microparticles; ¶[0062], line 1-6, An average particle size of the microparticles is not particularly limited, and for example, can be set to a value in a range from 0.5 µm to 5.0 µm).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 6, 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 (¶[0062], line 1-6, An average particle size of the microparticles is not particularly limited, and for example, can be set to a value in a range from 0.5 µm to 5.0 µm; ¶[0064], line 1-6, The thickness dimension of the antiglare layer 3 can be set as appropriate, but is, for example, preferably a value in a range from 0.3 µm to 20 µm, more preferably a value in a range from 1 µm to 15 µm, and still more preferably a value in a range from 1 µm to 10 µm; ---for D = 2.5 µm and T = 10 µm; D/T = 0.25).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 6, 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 (¶[0088], line 1-9, a ratio G2/G1 of the weight G1 of the matrix resin of the antiglare layer to the total weight G2 of the plurality of microparticles included in the antiglare layer is set to a value in a range from 0.07 to 0.20).
Regarding Claim 9, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 6, comprising inorganic particles as the particles (¶[0060], line 1-5, The antiglare layer 3 may include a plurality of microparticles (fillers) dispersed in a matrix resin. The microparticles may be organic microparticles and/or inorganic microparticles).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 9, further comprising organic particles as the particles (¶[0060], line 1-5, The antiglare layer 3 may include a plurality of microparticles (fillers) dispersed in a matrix resin. The microparticles may be organic microparticles and/or inorganic microparticles).
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 10, wherein the inorganic particles are irregularly shaped inorganic particles, and a mass ratio between the irregularly shaped inorganic particles and the organic particles is 5:1 to 1:1 (¶[0083], line 1-15, The microparticles are formed in a perfectly spherical shape, but the shape of the microparticles is not limited thereto, and may be formed in a substantially spherical or ellipsoidal shape; ------further, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 13, Hayashi teaches the anti-glare film according to claim 6, wherein the binder resin comprises a cured product of an ionizing radiation-curable resin composition and a thermoplastic resin (¶[0034], line 1-5, the antiglare layer 3 of the present embodiment includes an acrylic copolymer, cellulose acetate propionate, and at least one (both in this case) of a nanosilica-containing acrylic UV curable compound and urethane acrylate; ¶[0054], line 1-10, a photocurable (ionizing radiation curable) compound that can be cured by ultraviolet light, electron beams or the like (such as photocurable monomers, oligomers and other such UV curable compounds).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 20200158922) in a view of Amimori et al (US 6977696).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayashi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the anti-glare film according to claim 1, wherein when a root mean roughness of the uneven surface is defined as Rq, Rq is 0.300 µm or more.
However, Amimori teaches an optical film (abstract; fig. 2; col. 9, line 44-46, an anti-glare layer is formed on the top surface of the display side of the display side polarizing plate); wherein when a root mean roughness of the uneven surface is defined as Rq, Rq is 0.300 µm or more (col. 32, line 60-67, the roughness on surface Ra is preferably 0.1--0.3 µm and more preferably 0.15-0.25 µm. On the other hand, Rz is preferably 1-3 µm and more preferably 1.3-2.3 µm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-glare film of Hayashi by the optical film of Amimori for a purpose to provide an optical film of matt property and a film having a high transmittance and matt property capable of preventing deterioration of display grade (non-uniformity of display or brightness, etc.) without causing lowering of display brightness (col. 3, line 46-54).
Claims 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 20200158922) in a view of Asakura et al (US 20100053756).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayashi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the anti-glare film according to claim 6, wherein the anti-glare layer further comprises inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 1 nm or more and 200 nm or less.
However, Asakura teaches an antiglare film (abstract; figs. 1-3), wherein the anti-glare layer further comprises inorganic fine particles having an average particle size of 1 nm or more and 200 nm or less (¶[0130], line 1-12, the antiglare layer of the present invention may contain an inorganic filler according to the purpose such as control of the refractive index; has an average primary particle diameter of generally 0.2 µm or less, preferably 0.1 µm or less, more preferably from 1 nm to 0.06 µm; ¶[0131], line 1-7, a low refractive index inorganic microfiller such as silica fine particle or hollow silica fine particle may be used as the inorganic filler. The preferred particle diameter thereof is the same as that of the above-described high refractive index inorganic microfiller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-glare film of Hayashi by the antiglare film of Asakura for a purpose to provide an antiglare film excellent in the denseness of black and the antiglare property; and to provide an antireflection film, a polarizing plate and an image display device, each having the antiglare film (¶[0009], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 14, Hayashi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the anti-glare film according to claim 1, further comprising an anti-reflection layer on the anti-glare layer, a surface of the anti-reflection layer being the uneven surface of the anti-glare film.
However, Asakura teaches an antiglare film (abstract; figs. 1-3), wherein further comprising an anti-reflection layer on the anti-glare layer, a surface of the anti-reflection layer being the uneven surface of the anti-glare film (fig. 3, 2- anti-glare layer, 3/4/5-- anti-reflection layer; ¶[0066], line 1-7, an antireflection film having a construction containing a medium refractive index layer/a high refractive index layer/a low refractive index layer is preferred; ¶[0067], line 1-10, an antiglare layer (2); a medium refractive index layer (3) and a high refractive index layer (4); a low refractive index layer (5)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-glare film of Hayashi by the antiglare film of Asakura for a purpose to provide an antiglare film excellent in the denseness of black and the antiglare property; and to provide an antireflection film, a polarizing plate and an image display device, each having the antiglare film (¶[0009], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 15, Hayashi – Asakura combination teaches 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 (¶[0164], line 1-14, The polarizing plate is mainly composed of two protective films for protecting both surfaces on the front and back sides of a polarizing film. The antiglare film or antireflection film of the present invention is preferably used for at least one of those two protective films sandwiching the polarizing film from both surfaces, as disclose in Asakura), and
a surface opposite to the uneven surface of the anti-glare film and the polarizer are disposed so as to face each other (fig. 1, 2, 1; ¶[0158], line 1-10, the antiglare film is disposed on the outermost surface of the display; The antiglare film of the present invention may be combined with a polarizing plate, as disclose in Asakura).
Regarding Claim 16, Hayashi – Asakura combination teaches a surface plate for an image display device (fig. 1, 16a, as disclose in Hayashi), the surface plate comprising:
a resin plate or a glass plate (¶[0157], line 1-14, The transparent support for use in the antiglare film of the present invention is preferably a plastic film, as disclose in Asakura); 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 (figs. 1-3, 2; 3/4/5, as disclose in Asakura); 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 (fig. 1, 2, 1, as disclose in Asakura).
Regarding Claim 17, Hayashi – Asakura combination teaches an image display panel comprising:
a display element (fig. 1, 16a, as disclose in Hayashi); and
an optical film disposed on a light-emitting surface side of the display element (fig. 1, 4, 2, 3, as disclose in Hayashi),
wherein the image display panel comprises the anti-glare film according to claim 1 as the optical film (fig. 1, 3, 16a, as disclose in Hayashi), 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 (fig. 1, 2, 1; ¶[0158], line 1-10, the antiglare film is disposed on the outermost surface of the display, as disclose in Asakura).
Regarding Claim 18, Hayashi – Asakura combination teaches an image display device comprising the image display panel according to claim 17, wherein the anti-glare film is disposed on an outermost surface (fig. 1, 3, as disclosed in Hayashi).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872