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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2024, 07/16/2024, 01/27/2026, 04/30/2026, and 05/15/206 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim 4-9, 12-14, and 19-21 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11 and 15-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 7 and 19-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 20-21 recite “the light incidence angle of -70o.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites that the predetermined layer includes a first predetermined layer and a second predetermined layer, however, claim 5 from which claim 19 depends already sets forth that the predetermined layer comprises first and second predetermined layers. It is not clear if claim 19 is claiming a second set of predetermined layers and thus if the refractive index limitation is referring to one of or both potential second predetermined layer(s).
For sake of further examination, claim 19 will be viewed as only requiring the predetermined layer comprising a single first and second predetermined layer.
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 4-9, 12-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2015/0346388) and further in view of Hiroki et al. (JP2020-034416) translation provided in IDS of 07/03/2024.
Regarding claims 4-6, 9, an 19, Han discloses an optical laminate for a display device (0003) comprising a base material (100), a predetermined layer (200/300) disposed on the base material; and outermost layer (400) disposed on the predetermined layer, where the predetermined layer includes a first predetermined layer on a side of the base material (200) and a second predetermined layer on a side of the outermost layer (300) (Fig. 2, 0049). Han discloses the refractive index of the first predetermined layer (200) is 1.3 to 1.39 (0042), overlapping the claimed refractive index of 2.00 or less; and the refractive index of the second predetermined layer is 1.4 to 1.54 (0045), overlapping the refractive index of 1.43 or more and 1.49 or less.
While Han teaches that the outermost layer may include an anti-fingerprint coating (0049), Han does not disclose the surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred, obtained from formula (1) as claimed with a variable angle colorimeter is 0 or less, where the light incidence angle is -30o with respect to a normal to a surface of a measurement object, and a measurement angle is +30o with respect to a normal to the surface of the measurement object.
Hiroki, in the analogous field of optical laminates (0046), teaches a method of evaluating fingerprint resistance (0001). Hiroki, teaches a surface having a measured value difference ΔL* between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred (lightness L* measured after application of liquid) and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred (lightness L* measured before application of liquid) (instant Formula (1)) of 0.5 or less, and most preferably 0 (0036), overlapping the claimed value of 0 or less (MPEP 2144.05).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the functional coating of Han to have a surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) as claimed in formula (1) of 0, as taught by Hiroki, as a smaller change in ΔL* indicates superior fingerprint resistance (0036).
Han in view of Hiroki does not disclose the ΔL*(θ) being measured with a variable angle colorimeter as the claimed incidence angles, however, an overlapping range would be expected as patentability is not based upon method of measurement but whether the property would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
Alternatively, Han in view of Hiroki disclose a substantially identical laminate as claimed, including the laminate structure and materials (Han: 0041, 0043, 0046 and Hiroki: 0057) as well as methods of application for example vacuum evaporation and wet coating ( Han: 0066 and Hiroki: 0100). Thus, the laminate of Han in view of Hiroki is expected to have a surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) as claimed.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claims 7, 20 and 21, Han in view of Hiroki disclose a substantially identical laminate as claimed, including the laminate structure and materials (Han: 0041, 0043, 0046 and Hiroki: 0057) as well as methods of application for example vacuum evaporation and wet coating (Han: 0066 and Hiroki: 0100). Thus, the laminate of Han in view of Hiroki is expected to have a surface having an angular dependence of ΔL*(θ) at a light incidence angle of -70o indicating a negative peak in a specular reflection region and a positive peak at an angle other than the specular reflection region (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 8, Han in view of Hiroki discloses the laminate of claim 4 as discussed above. The prior art does not expressly teach a method of transferring the artificial fingerprint liquid or pressing with a pseudo finger as claimed, however, claim 8 is directed to product by process language. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 12-14, Han discloses an optical laminate for a display device (0003) comprising a base material (100), a predetermined layer (200/300) disposed on the base material; and outermost layer (400) disposed on the predetermined layer, where the predetermined layer includes a first predetermined layer on a side of the base material (200) and a second predetermined layer on a side of the outermost layer (300) (Fig. 2, 0049). Han discloses the refractive index of the first predetermined layer (200) is 1.3 to 1.39 (0042), overlapping the claimed refractive index of 2.00 or less; and the refractive index of the second predetermined layer is 1.4 to 1.54 (0045), overlapping the refractive index of 1.43 or more and 1.49 or less.
While Han teaches that the outermost layer may include an anti-fingerprint coating (0049), Han does not disclose the surface having measured value differences ΔL*(θ) and ΔC*(θ) between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred, obtained from formula (1) and (2) as claimed with a variable angle colorimeter, satisfying -25≤ ΔL*(θ)≤15 and ΔC*(θ)≤15 where the light incidence angle is -30o with respect to a normal to a surface of a measurement object, and a measurement angle is +30o with respect to a normal to the surface of the measurement object.
Hiroki, in the analogous field of optical laminates (0046), teaches a method of evaluating fingerprint resistance (0001). Hiroki, teaches a surface having a measured value difference ΔL* between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred (lightness L* measured after application of liquid) and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred (lightness L* measured before application of liquid) (instant Formula (1)) of 0.5 or less, and most preferably 0 (0036), overlapping the claimed value satisfying -25≤ ΔL*(θ)≤15 in claim 12 and -5≤ ΔL*(θ)≤5 in claim 13 (MPEP 2144.05).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the functional coating of Han to have a surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) as claimed in formula (1) of 0, as taught by Hiroki, as a smaller change in ΔL* indicates superior fingerprint resistance (0036).
Han in view of Hiroki does not disclose the ΔL*(θ) being measured with a variable angle colorimeter as the claimed incidence angles, however, an overlapping range would be expected as patentability is not based upon method of measurement but whether the property would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
Alternatively, Han in view of Hiroki disclose a substantially identical laminate as claimed, including the laminate structure and materials (Han: 0041, 0043, 0046 and Hiroki: 0057) as well as methods of application for example vacuum evaporation and wet coating (Han: 0066 and Hiroki: 0100). Thus, the laminate of Han in view of Hiroki is expected to have a surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Similarly, while Han in view of Hiroki do not expressly teach Formula (2) being satisfied as claimed in claims 12 and 13 (in formulas 3 and 4), as Han in view of Hiroki disclose a substantially identical laminate structure, materials, and method of making the measured value difference ΔC*(θ) is expected of the prior art laminate (MPEP 2112).
Correspondance
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights