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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0118309 ("Itoh") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0073760 ("Shiota") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0222491 ("Kubo") further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006/184849 ("Shigenobu").
Regarding claim 1, Itoh discloses a method for evaluating fingerprint resistance of a surface of an object, comprising:
using a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred (paragraph [0060]) and once wiped off (surface is cleaned, paragraph [0061]), and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred on a surface of the object (reference, paragraph [0058]), obtained from formula (1) below with a [light detector] (4, Fig. 1, paragraph [0045]):
Formula (1)
ΔL*(θ) = L* of wiping portion after transfer of artificial fingerprint liquid - L* of artificial fingerprint liquid non-transfer portion (paragraph [0058], color difference is measured).
Itoh does not explicitly disclose a variable angle colorimeter is used, wherein a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object, and a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Shiota discloses a variable angle photometer (paragraph [0059]), wherein a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (paragraph [0060]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a variable angle photometer and a measurement angle of -5° as disclosed by Shiota in order to obtain multi-angle color measurements and obtain the luminance of total reflected light.
Itoh in view of Shiota does not disclose a variable angle colorimeter, nor that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Kubo discloses a variable angle colorimeter (paragraphs [0335]-[0337]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a colorimeter as it is simple to operate and relatively inexpensive compared to photometers.
Itoh in view of Shiota further in view of Kubo does not disclose that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Shigenobu discloses a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (see α, Fig. 2, “L* a* b* color system chromaticity measured when the angle α is changed from 0° to 90° every 10°”).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make measurements while both light incidence angle and measurement angle are changed, including the specific 70° and 5° angles, in order to obtain a full evaluation given that from some angles a fingerprint may be invisible, while at other angles it may be discernable.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh in view of Shiota, Kubo and Shigenobu further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0298180 ("Ono").
Regarding claim 3, Itoh in view of Shiota, Kubo and Shgenobu discloses the evaluation method according to claim 1, but does not disclose further using an amount of squalene adhered to a surface of the object when evaluating fingerprint resistance of the surface of the object.
However, Ono discloses using an amount of squalene adhered to a surface of the object when evaluating fingerprint resistance of the surface of the object (paragraph [0407]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use squalene as disclosed by Ono in the device of Itoh in view of Shiota, Kubo and Shigenobu in order to prepare the fingerprint stamp as it is a sebum that is carried by a finger or other body part.
Claims 4, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication No. 2020/0026008 ("Hiroki") in view of Shiota, Kubo and Shigenobu.
Regarding claim 4, Hiroki discloses a laminate (Fig. 1) comprising:
a surface having a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred and once wiped off, and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred (“{(brightness after application L * -brightness before application L *)”), obtained from formula (1) below with a variable angle colorimeter (“using a simultaneous metering spectroscopic colorimeter”), of 0.1 or less (see “In this case, it can be said that the smaller the change amount ΔL *, the better the fingerprint resistance. In order to have excellent anti-fingerprint, it is preferable that change amount (DELTA) L * is less than 0.3, It is more preferable that it is 0.2 or less, It is especially preferable that it is 0.12 or less, It is more preferable that it is 0.04 or less. Moreover, although it is most preferable that the lower limit of change amount (DELTA) L * is 0, it is usually preferable that it is 0.01 or more, and it is especially preferable that it is 0.02 or more.”),
Formula (1)
ΔL*(θ) = L* of wiping portion after transfer of artificial fingerprint liquid - L* of artificial fingerprint liquid non-transfer portion ({(brightness after application L * -brightness before application L *)).
Hiroki does not disclose that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of a measurement object, and a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to the surface of the measurement object.
However, Shiota discloses a variable angle photometer (paragraph [0059]), wherein a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (paragraph [0060]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a variable angle photometer and a measurement angle of -5° as disclosed by Shoita in the device of Hiroki in order to obtain multi-angle color measurements and obtain the luminance of total reflected light.
Hiroki in view of Shiota does not disclose a variable angle colorimeter, nor that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Kubo discloses a variable angle colorimeter (paragraphs [0335]-[0337]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a colorimeter as it is simple to operate and relatively inexpensive compared to photometers.
Hiroki in view of Shiota further in view of Kubo does not disclose that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Shigenobu discloses a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (α, Fig. 2, “L* a* b* color system chromaticity measured when the angle α is changed from 0° to 90° every 10°”).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make measurements while both light incidence angle and measurement angle are changed, including the specific 70° and 5° angles, in order to obtain a full evaluation given that from some angles a fingerprint may be invisible, while at other angles it may be discernable.
Regarding claim 11, Hiroki in view of Shiota, Kubo, and Shigenobu discloses the laminate according to claim 4, and Hiroki further discloses a display device comprising the laminate (“The types of the optical member according to the present embodiment include those described above. Among them, a plastic film, a plastic plate, a glass plate, a display, a touch panel, and the like having a hard coat layer on the outermost surface (the surface with which a finger contacts) are particularly preferable.”).
Regarding claim 12, Hiroki discloses a method for producing a laminate, wherein the laminate is produced so that on a surface of the laminate (Fig. 1), a measured value difference ΔL*(θ) between a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is transferred and once wiped off, and a portion to which an artificial fingerprint liquid is not transferred, obtained from formula (1) below with a variable angle colorimeter is 0.1 or less (see “In this case, it can be said that the smaller the change amount ΔL *, the better the fingerprint resistance. In order to have excellent anti-fingerprint, it is preferable that change amount (DELTA) L * is less than 0.3, It is more preferable that it is 0.2 or less, It is especially preferable that it is 0.12 or less, It is more preferable that it is 0.04 or less. Moreover, although it is most preferable that the lower limit of change amount (DELTA) L * is 0, it is usually preferable that it is 0.01 or more, and it is especially preferable that it is 0.02 or more.”),
Formula (1)
ΔL*(θ) = L* of wiping portion after transfer of artificial fingerprint liquid - L* of artificial fingerprint liquid non-transfer portion ({(brightness after application L * - brightness before application L *).
Hiroki does not disclose that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of a measurement object, and a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to the surface of the measurement object.
However, Shiota discloses a variable angle photometer (paragraph [0059]), wherein a measurement angle is -5° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (paragraph [0060]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a variable angle photometer and a measurement angle of -5° as disclosed by Shoita in the device of Hiroki in order to obtain multi-angle color measurements and obtain the luminance of total reflected light.
Hiroki in view of Shiota does not disclose a variable angle colorimeter, nor that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Kubo discloses a variable angle colorimeter (paragraphs [0335]-[0337]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a colorimeter as it is simple to operate and relatively inexpensive compared to photometers.
Hiroki in view of Shiota further in view of Kubo does not disclose that a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object.
However, Shigenobu discloses a light incidence angle is -70° with respect to a normal to a surface of the object (α, Fig. 2, “L* a* b* color system chromaticity measured when the angle α is changed from 0° to 90° every 10°”).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make measurements while both light incidence angle and measurement angle are changed, including the specific 70° and 5° angles, in order to obtain a full evaluation given that from some angles a fingerprint may be invisible, while at other angles it may be discernable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-10, 13-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2, 10, 13, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: adhering the artificial fingerprint liquid to a base material for transfer by a spin coating method to prepare a transfer foil with a haze value of 7 ± 2%, pressing a pseudo finger against the transfer foil with a load of 60 N, and then pressing the pseudo finger against a surface of the object for 2 seconds with a load of 60 N, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 5-6, 14-20, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: the predetermined layer includes a first predetermined layer on a side of the base material and a second predetermined layer on a side of the outermost layer, and a refractive index of the first predetermined layer is 2.00 or less, and a refractive of the second predetermined layer is 1.43 or more and 1.49 or less, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 7-8, the invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: indication of positive or negative peaks in the reflection region or other region, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878