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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/14/2026.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gradient refractive index profile" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no previous recitation of “a gradient refractive index profile in claim 3 or claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parker (US 2018/0284330 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Parker teaches an article coating structure having structures that reduce sparkle effects (an anti-sparkle substrate) (Parker: abstract; par. 0194). The anti-sparkle substrate comprising: a plurality of optical structures (12, features) which may comprise a silver color on a base layer (10, a substrate) (Parker: par. 0164 and 0201). The feature concentration is non-zero at a major surface of as the optical coating structure may be applied to the surface of a base layer (a substrate) (Parker: par. 0024). The features may cover a percentage of the substrate and thus may be considered to have an area with no feature concentration on the major surface in which said plurality of features is excluded (Parker: par. 0024 and 0164). The features may be considered to extend from a major surface of the substrate to a depth as they have a height (a depth) that is a concave indention profile (Parker: Fig. 7D; par. 0031 and 0043-0050).
Regarding claim 12,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Applicant does not provide a special definition for the phrase “integral”. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is taken. Integral will be interpreted as an important or structurally be part of the final claimed anti-sparkle substrate. Parker may further be considered to teach the features are “integral” to the anti-sparkle substrate as they are an important feature and is attached into a final product with said substrate.
Regarding claim 13,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches the base layer may be a black-colored material and the features may be present only on the first major surface and thus the second major surface, the opposite of the first major surface, may be considered to have no reflectance of light incident as light is prevented from coming through said black coating/backing of the base layer and would thus satisfy the claimed 0.001% or less (Parker: par. 0121).
Regarding claim 14,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches the substrate may be a mesh structure with the apertures extending through it, thus as there is discontinuous features on both the first and second major surfaces, the substrate may be considered to have a textured surface opposite the major surface to some degree (Parker: Fig. 27A-B; par. 0208-0209).
Regarding claim 16,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches an additional coating (16) may be placed on top of the anti-sparkle substrate (10 + 12) and may be an anti-reflective coating and this multilayer stack with the anti-sparkle substrate may be placed on display devices such as computers or laptops which may be considered a “pixelated display unit” as they have screens that display pixels (Parker: Fig. 22; par. 0035 and 0203).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Bookbinder et al. (US 2015/0331149 A1).
Regarding claims 2-7,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches the features may have a higher refractive index compared to the substrate (Parker: par. 0201-0203). The features may also comprise layers of higher and lower refractive index materials that produce a reflection having peak wavelength in the range of 350 to 800 nm (which excludes 200 to 350 nm wavelength) with no break in continuity (a gradient), which would extend from a depth to a first major surface as the layers extend away from said first major surface (Parker: claim 56). However, Parker does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index of the features is greater by about 0.03 to 0.10 compared to a first major surface of the substrate that does not have said features or a gradient in the claimed concentration direction compared to the first major surface or the feature refractive index being from 1.55 to about 1.60.
Bookbinder teaches an anti-glare and anti-sparkle transparent structures (features) that mixes materials of differing refractive index to achieve the desired anti-glare or anti-sparkle properties (Bookbinder: abstract). The features may have a gradient refractive index profile that may be adjusted to achieve the desired anti-glare and/or anti-sparkle with Examples detailing feature refractive index sections having a refractive index within the claimed range of about 1.55 to about 1.60 and a gradient that adjusts in from 0.02 to 0.15 increments in Tables 1-2 to achieve properties (Bookbinder: Fig. 19-22; Table 1 and 2; par. 0129-0148).
Parker and Bookbinder are in the corresponding field of anti-reflective and anti-sparkle substrates comprising features for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness/depth and utilize gradient features to achieve the desired refractive index differences within the features and compared to the substrate of Parker, such as the claimed difference from the first major surface and the features being 0.03 to 0.10, a gradient in the claimed direction with a silver concentration, and the claimed feature refractive index being 1.55 to 1.60 to achieve the desired anti-sparkle and anti-glare property effects on the surface of the substrate as taught by Bookbinder.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-18,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1 and the display device required by claim 16. Parker is silent towards the anti-sparkle substrate exhibiting a sparkle, when measured by pixel power deviation reference (PPDr), in a range of from about 1% to 3% and wherein a reference sparkle of another display device with another substrate instead of the anti-sparkle substrate without the plurality of features is greater than the sparkle of the display by about 30% or more.
However, Parker in view of Bookbinder teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the refractive index properties to meet the claimed refractive index and gradient claimed features as noted in the rejection of claims 2-7 above.
Therefore, it would be expected the resulting product would also meet the claimed sparkle properties when measured in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker.
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches the height (depth) of the features may be from 1 to 10 µm, which overlaps with the claimed 8 to about 30 micrometers, and the width may be from 10 to 50 µm in size, which overlaps with a maximum dimension size of about 5 to about 20 micrometers (Parker: par. 0166).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches the plurality of features may have a period (spacing) between of about 5 to about 25µm, which overlaps with the claimed about 8 to about 30 micrometers (Parker: par. 0036).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11,
Parker teaches the anti-sparkle substrate required by claim 1. Parker further teaches that greater than 50% of the surface area appears normal to incoming light and thus 050% or more would translate to the total surface area of the first major surface, which overlaps with the claimed about 35% to about 75% (Parker: claim 52).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights