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 (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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (WO 2021/002304 A1) in view of Fujii (US 2018/0203354 A1).
Re claims 1 and 16-18, Yamazaki et al. discloses a device comprising a transparent substrate (2); and an antireflection film (6) provided on one principal surface of the transparent substrate, wherein the antireflection film is a multi-layer film including one or more high-refractive index films (8) having a relatively high refractive index and one or more low-refractive index film (7) having a relatively low refractive index (paragraph 0017), at least one or more light-absorbing film (3), and the light-absorbing film includes a dielectric phase containing a material having a band gap of not less than 2.0 eV and not more than 2.7 eV and a metallic phase (paragraph 0034). Yamazaki et al. does not disclose the device wherein the one or more low-refractive index films is a light-absorbing film, wherein a refractive index of the light-absorbing film at a wavelength of 550 nm is not less than 1.0 and no more than 2.2, and wherein the light absorbing-film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, or a film containing Ag, iron oxide and chromium oxide, wherein the light-absorbing film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, wherein the light absorbing film is a film containing Ag, iron oxide, and chromium oxide.
Fujii et al. discloses a device wherein one or more low-refractive index films is a light-absorbing film (paragraph 0038-0041), wherein a refractive index of the light-absorbing film at a wavelength of 550 nm is not less than 1.0 and not more than 2.2 (paragraph 0030), and wherein the light absorbing-film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, or a film containing Ag, iron oxide and chromium oxide, wherein the light-absorbing film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, wherein the light absorbing film is a film containing Ag, iron oxide, and chromium oxide (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the one or more low-refractive index films is a light-absorbing film, wherein a refractive index of the light-absorbing film at a wavelength of 550 nm is not less than 10.0 and no more than 2.2 and wherein the light absorbing-film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, or a film containing Ag, iron oxide and chromium oxide, wherein the light-absorbing film is a film containing Ag, aluminum oxide, and iron oxide, wherein the light absorbing film is a film containing Ag, iron oxide, and chromium oxide since one would be motivated to obtain a device with reduced reflection of light and that imparts no yellowish tinge (paragraph 0008, 0029). Fujii et al. also discloses that the high refractive index layer (22) and/or the low refractive index layer (26) may comprise a light absorbing film (paragraph 0041) to obtain the device that imparts no yellowish tinge. Therefore, in light of the teachings of Fujii et al. it would have been “obvious to try” imparting a light absorbing property to the low-refractive index layer to achieve the predictable result of no yellowish tinge (KSR).
Re claim 3, Yamazaki et al. discloses the device wherein at least one or more high-refractive index films is at least one selected from the group consisting of niobium oxide, silicon nitride, tantalum oxide, titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, hafnium oxide, and aluminum oxide (paragraph 0062).
Re claim 4, Fujii et al. discloses the device wherein, in the multi-layer film, the one or more high-refractive index film and the one or more low-refractive film are alternately layered (paragraph 0017).
Re claim 5, Fujii et al. discloses the device wherein an outermost layer (8) of the multi-layer film located on a side opposite to the transparent substrate is a film containing silicon oxide or silicon nitride (Fig. 4, ref. 8; paragraph 0062).
Re claim 6, Fujii et al. discloses the device wherein the material having a band gap of not less than 2.0 eV and not more than 2.7 eV is a metal oxide (paragraph 0031).
Re claim 7, Fujii et al. discloses the device wherein the antireflection film has an electric resistance value of 106 ohms or more (paragraph 0058).
Re claims 8 and 9, Fujii et al. does not disclose the device wherein when light is allowed to enter the film-attached transparent substrate through the antireflection film, the film-attached transparent substrate exhibits a luminous reflectance of 2% or less, and wherein when light is allowed to enter the film-attached transparent substrate through the transparent substrate, the film-attached substrate exhibits a luminous reflectance of 6% or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein when light is allowed to enter the film-attached transparent substrate through the antireflection film, the film-attached transparent substrate exhibits a luminous reflectance of 2% or less, and wherein when light is allowed to enter the film-attached transparent substrate through the transparent substrate, the film-attached substrate exhibits a luminous reflectance of 6% or less. Yamazaki et al. discloses the device wherein the transparent base plate takes on achromatic black during turn-off of the light source, and thus has excellent aesthetic appearance (paragraph 0041). Therefore, obtaining the device such that light has minimal reflectance through the layers in order obtain excellent aesthetic appearance is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 10, Yamazaki et al. does not disclose the device having a luminous transmittance of 75% or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device having a luminous transmittance of 75% or less. Yamazaki et al. discloses the device wherein the transparent base plate takes on achromatic black during turn-off of the light source, and thus has excellent aesthetic appearance (paragraph 0041). Therefore, obtaining the device such that the light has a luminous transmittance of 75% or less to obtain excellent aesthetic appearance is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claims 11 and 12, Yamazaki et al. does not disclose the device wherein, regarding at least one of a luminous reflectance and a luminance transmittance of the film-attached transparent substrate, an absolute a* value in a L*a*b* color system at an angle of light incidence of 0o is 5 or less and an absolute b* value in the L*a*b* color system at an angle of light incidence of 0o is 5 or less, and wherein, regarding at least one of a luminous reflectance and a luminous transmittance of the film-attached transparent substrate, an absolute value of a difference between an a* value at an angle of light incidence of 0 o and an a* value at an angle of light incidence of 45 o in a L*a*b* color system is 5 or less and an absolute value of a difference between a b* value at an angle of light incidence of 0 o and a b* value at an angle of light incidence of 45 o in the L*a*b* color system is 5 or less. Yamazaki et al. discloses the device wherein the more colorless the aesthetically appealing (paragraph 0025). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein regarding at least one of a luminous reflectance and a luminance transmittance of the film-attached transparent substrate, an absolute a* value in a L*a*b* color system at an angle of light incidence of 00 is 5 or less and an absolute b* value in the L*a*b* color system at an angle of light incidence of 00 is 5 or less, and wherein, regarding at least one of a luminous reflectance and a luminous transmittance of the film-attached transparent substrate, an absolute value of a difference between an a* value at an angle of light incidence of 0o and an a* value at an angle of light incidence of 450 in a L*a*b* color system is 5 or less and an absolute value of a difference between a b* value at an angle of light incidence of 00 and a b* value at an angle of light incidence of 450 in the L*a*b* color system is 5 or less to improve aesthetic appeal is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claim 13, Yamazaki et al. discloses the device comprising a top plate for a cooker, the top plate comprising the film-attached transparent substrate wherein the transparent substrate has a cooking surface on which a cooking utensil is to be placed and an underside surface opposite to the cooking surface (paragraph 0067-0068), and the antireflection film (3, 6) is disposed on the underside surface of the transparent substrate (Fig. 7; paragraphs 0067-0068).
Re claim 14, Yamazaki et al. discloses a window glass comprising the film-attached transparent substate wherein the light absorbing film (3) is disposed on a principal surface of the transparent substrate located toward a heating device of the heat cooker (Fig. 7, ref. 3).
Re claim 15 Yamazaki et al. discloses a cover glass for use with a display the cover glass comprising the film-attached transparent substrate according to claim 1, wherein the transparent substrate (2) is a front substrate, and the antireflection film (3) is disposed on a principal surface of the transparent substrate located on an opposite side of the transparent substrate relative to a principal surface of the transparent substrate where the display (A) is provided (paragraph 0041).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Yamazaki in view of Fujii fails to teach or suggest the features of “wherein the antireflection film is a multi-layer film including one or more high-refractive index films having a relatively high refractive index and one or more low-refractive index film having a relatively low refractive index”, “at least one of the one or more low-refractive index films is a light-absorbing film”, and “a refractive index of the light absorbing film at a wavelength of 550 nm is not less than 1.0 and not more than 1.56”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fuji discloses a low-refractive index film that is a light-absorbing film and has a refractive index within the Applicant’s recited range. Specifically, layer (22) may be a low refractive index film having a relatively low refractive index (paragraph 0030) which is a light-absorbing film, since the film particles (24) having light ray absorbency are dispersed in the dielectric layer (22) (paragraph 0031). Furthermore, the refractive index of the light absorbing film comprises values within the claimed range, which is depicted as 1.6 or lower at a wavelength of 550 nm.
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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights