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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure sheet (IDS) submitted on July 31st, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-22, 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwata (US 2008/0260997).
Regarding claim 1, Iwata discloses a display apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a display panel ([0223], “there is provided an image display device.”) configured to display an image; and
a coherence prevention layer (2, [0066], “An anti-dazzling layer 2, which functions both as a substrate concavoconvex layer 4 and a surface modifying layer 5”) on the display panel ([0223], “The optical laminate according to the present invention … is provided on the surface of a display device”),
wherein the coherence prevention layer comprises:
a refractive index particle layer (2, [0065], “an optical laminate comprising an anti-dazzling layer 2”); and
a filling layer on the refractive index particle layer (3, [0065], “a low-refractive index layer 3”),
wherein the refractive index particle layer comprises:
a light-transmissive matrix ([0069], “the anti-dazzling layer is formed of a resin”); and
refractive index particles ([0069], “fine particles”) dispersed in the light-transmissive matrix ([0069], “the anti-dazzling layer is formed of a resin and fine particles”, as shown in Figs. 1-2, the particles are dispersed in the resin), and
wherein the filling layer (3) and the refractive index particles (A, B, and C in Fig. 2) have different refractive indices ([0065], “a low-refractive index layer 3 having a lower refractive index than the anti-dazzling layer 2 provided on the surface of the anti-dazzling layer 2 is preferred”, Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), the fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.6 and the resin has a refractive index of 1.51, thus layer 3 has a refractive index (which is lower than 1.51) is different from the indices of 1.535 and 1.6).
Regarding claim 2, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles (A, B, and C) include a first particle (A) and a second particle (B),
wherein the first particle (A) has a first refractive index (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), monodisperse acrylic beads with refractive index of 1.535) and the second particle (B) has a second refractive index (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), monodisperse styrene beads with refractive index of 1.60), and
wherein the first refractive index is different from the second refractive index (as disclosed in Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), the first and second fine particles have different refractive indices).
Regarding claim 3, Iwata further discloses wherein a difference between the refractive index of the refractive index particles (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first and second fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.60) and the refractive index of the filling layer is (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), resin has refractive index of 1.51, layer 3 has a refractive index less than 1.51 as disclosed in [0065]) in a range of about 0.05 to about 0.40 (the difference in refractive index is greater than 0.058).
Regarding claim 4, Iwata further discloses wherein the first particle (A) and the second particle (B) have a refractive index difference in a range of about 0.05 to about 0.40 (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first and second fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.60, the difference being 0.065).
Regarding claim 5, Iwata further discloses wherein the first particle (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first particle, diameter of 7.0μm) and the second particle have different particle diameters (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), second particle, diameter of 3.5μm, the two particles have different diameters).
Regarding claim 6, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles have an average particle diameter of about 760 nm to about 20 μm (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first through third particles have diameters of 7.0, 3.5, and 2.5 microns which fall within the stated range).
Regarding claim 8, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS), nylon, silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (SixNy), silicon oxide nitride (SiON), aluminum oxide (AlOx), aluminum nitride (AlON), zinc oxide (ZnO), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), and hafnium oxide (HfO2) ([0084], “Plastic beads include polystyrene beads (refractive index 1.60)”).
Regarding claim 9, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particle layer (2) has a plurality of lens patterns ([0066], “the substrate concavoconvex layer 4 comprises first fine particles A and second fine particles B”, as shown in “Figs. 1-2, particles A and B corm different lens patterns).
Regarding claim 10, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particle layer (2) has a monolayer structure by the refractive index particles (as shown in Figs. 1-2, particle A forms a monolayer structure where the layer is a thickness of the single particle).
Regarding claim 13, Iwata discloses a coherence prevention member (Figs. 1-2, element 2, [0066], “An anti-dazzling layer 2, which functions both as a substrate concavoconvex layer 4 and a surface modifying layer 5”) comprising:
a refractive index particle layer (2, [0065], “an optical laminate comprising an anti-dazzling layer 2”); and
a filling layer on the refractive index particle layer (3, [0065], “a low-refractive index layer 3”),
wherein the refractive index particle layer comprises:
a light-transmissive matrix ([0069], “the anti-dazzling layer is formed of a resin”); and
refractive index particles ([0069], “fine particles”) dispersed in the light-transmissive matrix ([0069], “the anti-dazzling layer is formed of a resin and fine particles”, as shown in Figs. 1-2, the particles are dispersed in the resin), and
wherein the refractive index particles (A, B, and C in Fig. 2) and the filling layer (3) have different refractive indices ([0065], “a low-refractive index layer 3 having a lower refractive index than the anti-dazzling layer 2 provided on the surface of the anti-dazzling layer 2 is preferred”, Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), the fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.6 and the resin has a refractive index of 1.51, thus layer 3 has a refractive index (which is lower than 1.51) is different from the indices of 1.535 and 1.6).
Regarding claim 14, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles (A, B, and C) include a first particle (A) and a second particle (B),
wherein the first particle (A) has a first refractive index (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), monodisperse acrylic beads with refractive index of 1.535) and the second particle (B) has a second refractive index (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), monodisperse styrene beads with refractive index of 1.60), and
wherein the first refractive index is different from the second refractive index (as disclosed in Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), the first and second fine particles have different refractive indices).
Regarding claim 15, Iwata further discloses wherein the first particle (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first particle, diameter of 7.0μm) and the second particle have different particle diameters (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), second particle, diameter of 3.5μm, the two particles have different diameters).
Regarding claim 16, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles have an average particle diameter of about 760 nm to about 20 μm (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first through third particles have diameters of 7.0, 3.5, and 2.5 microns which fall within the stated range).
Regarding claim 17, Iwata further discloses wherein a difference in refractive index between the refractive index particles (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first and second fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.60) and the filling layer (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), resin has refractive index of 1.51, layer 3 has a refractive index less than 1.51 as disclosed in [0065]) is in a range of about 0.05 to about 0.40 (the difference in refractive index is greater than 0.058).
Regarding claim 18, Iwata further discloses wherein the first particle (A) and the second particle (B) have a refractive index difference in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.40 (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), first and second fine particles have refractive indices of 1.535 and 1.60, the difference being 0.065).
Regarding claim 20, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), polystyrene (PS), nylon, silicon oxide (SiO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), silicon nitride (SixNy), silicon oxide nitride (SiON), aluminum oxide (AlOx), aluminum nitride (AlON), zinc oxide (ZnO), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), and hafnium oxide (HfO2) ([0084], “Plastic beads include polystyrene beads (refractive index 1.60)”).
Regarding claim 21, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particle layer (2) has a plurality of lens patterns ([0066], “the substrate concavoconvex layer 4 comprises first fine particles A and second fine particles B”, as shown in “Figs. 1-2, particles A and B corm different lens patterns).
Regarding claim 22, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particle layer (2) has a monolayer structure by the refractive index particles (as shown in Figs. 1-2, particle A forms a monolayer structure where the layer is a thickness of the single particle).
Regarding claim 24, Iwata further discloses a display apparatus ([0223], “display device”) comprising:
a display panel ([0223], “there is provided an image display device.”); and
the coherence prevention member, disposed on the display panel ([0223], “The optical laminate according to the present invention … is provided on the surface of a display device”).
Regarding claim 25, Iwata further discloses wherein the display apparatus ([0223], “display device”) excludes a polarizer ([0223], “The optical laminate according to the present invention or the polarizing plate”, as disclosed in [0223], the laminate comprising the refractive index particles is utilized instead of a polarizer).
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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 2008/0260997) in view of Kodama (US 2013/0027641).
Regarding claim 7, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles further comprise a third particle (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), third particle amorphous silica).
Iwata does not specifically disclose having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle and the second refractive index of the second particle.
However Kodama, in the same filed of endeavor because both teach a display apparatus, teaches having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle ([0342], “Amorphous silica (refractive index: 1.45)”, this is different from the refractive indices of the first and second particles of Iwata which were 1.535 and 1.6 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the display apparatus of Iwata with the having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle and the second refractive index of the second particle as taught by Kodama, for the purpose of preventing aggregation of translucent particles ([0163]).
Regarding claim 19, Iwata further discloses wherein the refractive index particles further comprise a third particle (Pg. 22, composition 4 (Example 2), third particle amorphous silica).
Iwata does not specifically disclose having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle and the second refractive index of the second particle.
However Kodama, in the same filed of endeavor because both teach a display apparatus, teaches having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle ([0342], “Amorphous silica (refractive index: 1.45)”, this is different from the refractive indices of the first and second particles of Iwata which were 1.535 and 1.6 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the display apparatus of Iwata with the having a refractive index different from the first refractive index of the first particle and the second refractive index of the second particle as taught by Kodama, for the purpose of preventing aggregation of translucent particles ([0163]).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 2008/0260997) in view of Ko (US 2021/0325569).
Regarding claim 11, Iwata discloses as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the refractive index particle layer has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view, and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view.
However Ko, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a display apparatus, teaches wherein the refractive index particle layer (Fig. 1, [0045], “low refractive index layer of the anti-reflective film according to the one embodiment may further include hollow inorganic particles”) has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 1(b), the particles have a packing density of more than 90%), and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view ([0140], “FIGS. 1(a) and (b) are photographs of the surfaces of the anti-reflective films of Examples 2 and 3, respectively, taken with an atomic force microscope (AFM)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the display apparatus of Iwata with the wherein the refractive index particle layer has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view, and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view as taught by Ko, for the purpose of improving screen sharpness of a display ([0008]).
Regarding claim 23, Iwata discloses as is set forth in claim 22 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the refractive index particle layer has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view, and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view.
However Ko, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a display apparatus, teaches wherein the refractive index particle layer (Fig. 1, [0045], “low refractive index layer of the anti-reflective film according to the one embodiment may further include hollow inorganic particles”) has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 1(b), the particles have a packing density of more than 90%), and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view ([0140], “FIGS. 1(a) and (b) are photographs of the surfaces of the anti-reflective films of Examples 2 and 3, respectively, taken with an atomic force microscope (AFM)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the display apparatus of Iwata with the wherein the refractive index particle layer has a packing density of 90% or more in a plan view, and wherein the packing density is calculated as a ratio of an area of the refractive index particles to an area of the refractive index particle layer, in a plan view as taught by Ko, for the purpose of improving screen sharpness of a display ([0008]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 2008/0260997) in view of Katsuta (US 2016/0139454).
Regarding claim 12, Iwata discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the display panel comprises a color filter layer, and wherein the coherence prevention layer is disposed on the color filter layer.
However Katsuta, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a display apparatus, teaches wherein the display panel (Figs. 1-2, element 1) comprises a color filter layer (10), and wherein the coherence prevention layer (8, [0046], “antiglare layer 8”) is disposed on the color filter layer (as shown in Fig. 1, 8 is disposed on layer 4, which has the color filter layer 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the display apparatus of Iwata with the wherein the display panel comprises a color filter layer, and wherein the coherence prevention layer is disposed on the color filter layer as taught by Katsuta, for the purpose of improving the viewing angles ([0132]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Furui (US 2010/0097705), Aro (US 2008/0112055), Matsunaga (US 2005/0152034), Ito (US 2005/0063062), Lin (US 2010/0068504), Ookubo (US 2007/0253064), and Murata (US 2007/0076298) teach a display apparatus comprising: a display panel configured to display an image; and a coherence prevention layer on the display panel, wherein the coherence prevention layer comprises: a refractive index particle layer; and a filling layer on the refractive index particle layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights