CTNF 18/827,202 CTNF 91848 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), based on an application filed in Japan on 08/18/2022. Priority Documents JP2022-130694 electronically retrieved by USPTO from a participating IP Office, which has been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 and 09/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings received on 09/06/2024 are accepted to by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 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. Claim 10 recites “wherein in the anti-glare layer, an interface between the binder and at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles is compatible”. It is not clear, what feature is referred by compatible. For the porose of examination, the Examiner interprets the compatible as proportional. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Im et al. (US 20100143702) Regarding claim 1 , Im teaches a resin film (refer to US 20100143702) comprising: an anti-glare layer comprising scattering particles having irregularities formed on surfaces of the anti-glare layer (In general, in the anti-glare coating film, the haze relates to external scattering because of roughness of the coating layer surface and internal scattering because of a filler in a binder resin, the anti-glare effect relates to external scattering because of the surface roughness, [0012]; an anti-glare layer that includes a core-shell particle having an average surface roughness ([Rz]) in the range of 0 to 2 .mu.m., [0018]; particles per unit volume of the coating film is reduced to reduce the inner scattering effect, [0046]); a binder comprising a resin dispersing the scattering particles (anti-glare film that includes a binder resin; [0017]; [0047]); and a low refractive index layer provided on the anti-glare layer (a low reflective layer that is provided on the anti-glare layer, [claim 31]; [0079], [0080]), the low refractive index layer having a refractive index less than or equal to 1.40 (the low reflective layer include metal fluorides having the refractive index of 1.40 or less, [0081]), wherein the anti-glare layer has a flat portion and a protrusion where the scattering particles protrude from the flat portion (Fig. 1 shows anti-glare layer has a flat portion and a protrusion; concave and the convex pattern are formed on the surface of the core-shell particle 12, as shown in FIG. 1, they are positioned in the anti-glare layer 11, the concave and the convex pattern are formed on the surface of the anti-glare layer 11, [0106]; concave and the convex patterns are formed on the surface of the core-shell particle 12, that is, in the case the surface of the core-shell particle 12 is rough, incident light from the outside may be scattered in various angles by using the concave and the convex patterns, [0107]; [claim 21]). Regarding claim 3 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), Im teaches, wherein the scattering particles have an average particle size of at least 1 μm and at most 10 μm. (particle diameter of the core be in the range of 0.5 to 5 μm and a difference between average refractive indices of the core and the binder resin be in the range of 0.02 to 0.3.) [0045]; an average particle diameter in the range of 1 to 50 nm., [0071]. Regarding claim , 9 Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein in the anti-glare layer, a difference between a refractive index of the binder and a refractive index of at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles is at most 0.15. (Claim 18; 0 to 0.2.). Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein in the anti-glare layer (layer 11), an interface between the binder (anti-glare film that includes a binder resin, [0017]) and at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles is compatible (in the anti-glare coating film, the haze relates to external scattering because of roughness of the coating layer surface and internal scattering because of a filler in a binder resin, the anti-glare effect relates to external scattering because of the surface roughness, and the image clarity relates to the degree of diffusion of light, [0012]). Image clarity and the anti-glare property are in an inverse proportion. Regarding claim 11, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein in the anti-glare layer, the binder has a refractive index of at least 1.50 and at most 1.60, (the refractive index of the binder resin is 1.51, [0036]). Regarding claim 12 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein in the anti-glare layer, a refractive index of at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles is at least 1.44 and at most 1.60, (refractive index of the core-shell particle that includes the polystyrene (refractive index: 1.6), [0036]). Regarding claim 13, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the scattering particles comprise at least one of silica particles, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) particles, melamine particles, or acetylcellulose particles. (silica, [0036]). Regarding claim 15 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the anti-glare layer further comprises nanoparticles having an average particle size of at most 100 nm., (silica having an average particle diameter in the range of 1 to 50 nm. [0072]). Regarding claim 16 , Im teaches a resin film (refer to US 20100143702) comprising: an anti-glare layer comprising scattering particles having irregularities formed on surfaces of the anti-glare layer; (In general, in the anti-glare coating film, the haze relates to external scattering because of roughness of the coating layer surface and internal scattering because of a filler in a binder resin, the anti-glare effect relates to external scattering because of the surface roughness, [0012]; an anti-glare layer that includes a core-shell particle having an average surface roughness ([Rz]) in the range of 0 to 2 .mu.m., [0018]; particles per unit volume of the coating film is reduced to reduce the inner scattering effect, [0046]); a low refractive index layer laminated on the anti-glare layer (a low reflective layer that is provided on the anti-glare layer, [0079]), the low refractive index layer having a refractive index less than or equal to a predetermined value (the refractive index of the low reflective layer may be in the range of 1.2 to 1.45.[0080]), wherein the anti-glare layer has a flat portion and a protrusion where the scattering particles protrude from the flat portion (Fig. 1 shows anti-glare layer has a flat portion and a protrusion where the scattering particles protrude from the flat portion; “incident light from the outside may be scattered in various angles by using the concave and the convex patterns” [0107]). Regarding claim 17 , Im teaches the resin film as claimed in claim 16, wherein the anti-glare layer has a ratio of the flat portion of an area of the protrusion of at least a first predetermined ratio (see Fig. 1) and at most a second predetermined ratio, based on a perspective from a direction in which the low refractive index layer (the coating layer surface; a low reflective layer that is provided on the anti-glare layer, [claim 31], is laminated. The anti-glare coating film may further include a transparent substrate layer that is provided at least one side of the anti-glare layer and/or a low reflective layer that is provided on the anti-glare layer, [0079]; the concave and the convex pattern are formed on the surface of the core-shell particle 12, as shown in FIG. 1, they are positioned in the anti-glare layer 11, the concave and the convex pattern are formed on the surface of the anti-glare layer 11.[0106]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong (KR 20160035701, machine Translation attached) . Regarding claim 2 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), Im teaches the resin film, wherein the anti-glare layer has flat portion and protrusion, and Fig. 3 shows an example of distance between the lowermost portion of the concave and the uppermost portion of the convex, [0040]; a direction in which the low refractive index layer is provided, and leveling agent may allow the surface of the coating film, [0073]. Im doesn’t explicitly teach the resin film, wherein the layer has a ratio of an area of the flat portion to an area of the protrusion of at least 2.0 and at most 30 based on a perspective. Im and Hong are related as layer with resin and particles. Hong teaches the layer has a ratio of an area of the flat portion to an area of the protrusion of at least 2.0 and at most 30 based on a perspective from a direction in which the low refractive index layer is provided (see [0059-0063] of machine translation, [MT]. The area of the protrusion (121) on the upper surface of the cured material (110) is formed to a sufficient level, [0059]; area of the protrusion (121) formed by the surface- modified silica particles (120) may occupy about 10% to about 80% of the total area of the upper surface [0060]; The area (S) of the above protrusion (121) does not refer to the actual curved surface area forming the protrusion (121), but is a value defined based on the planar area occupied by the protrusion (121) on the upper surface of the hardened material (110), [0062]; see Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the resin film of Im to incorporate the ratio of an area of the flat portion to an area of the protrusion of at least 2.0 and at most 30 based on a perspective from a direction in which the layer is provided for the predictable advantage that the protrusion is densely formed on the upper surface and the height and width of the protrusion are increased to realize a better Newton ring prevention performance and simplifying the manufacturing process and saving time and cost.as taught by Hong in [0065 and 0079] of MT . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0207298) . Regarding claim 4 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 3 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g as determined by a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method. Im and Suzuki are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Suzuki teaches at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g as determined by a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method (surface are of the hollow silica is preferably from 20 to 300 m2/g, more preferably from 30 to 120 m.sup.2/g, most preferably from 40 to 90 m.sup.2/g. The surface area can be determined according to BET method using nitrogen., [0302]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g as determined by a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method, as taught by Suzuki for the predictable advantage of getting high surface uniformity with decreasing drying unevenness and wind unevenness and sufficient scratch resistance [0012], Regarding claim 5 , Im teaches the resin film according to claim 3 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a particle size of at least 20 μm in a proportion of a particle ratio of at most 1 mass%. Im and Suzuki are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Suzuki teaches wherein at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a particle size of at least 20 μm in a proportion of a particle ratio of at most 1 mass% (when particles having a particle size larger than the average particle size by 20% or more are specified as coarse particles, the proportion of the coarse particles is preferably 1% or less, more preferably 0.1% or less, still more preferably 0.01% or less, based on the number of total particles. As a method for obtaining particles having such particle size distribution, it is effective to conduct classification after preparation or synthesis reaction of the particles, and particles with a desired particle size distribution can be obtained by increasing the number of repeating classification or by intensifying the degree of classification, [0264]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a particle size of at least 20 μm in a proportion of a particle ratio of at most 1 mass%, as taught by Suzuki for the predictable advantage of getting high surface uniformity with decreasing drying unevenness and wind unevenness and sufficient scratch resistance [0012], Regarding claim 14, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the scattering particles comprise silicon particles. Im and Suzuki are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Suzuki teaches wherein the scattering particles comprise silicon particles (inorganic particles, there are illustrated oxides of at least one metal selected from among silicon, [0270]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate the scattering particles comprise silicon particles, as taught by Suzuki for the predictable advantage of getting high surface uniformity with decreasing drying unevenness and wind unevenness and sufficient scratch resistance [0012] , 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KUBOTA et al. (TW 202141072, Examiner provided machine translation) . Regarding claim 6, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a coefficient of variation of a grain-size distribution of 30% or less. Im and Kubota are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Kubota teaches articles preferably have a coefficient of variation of the particle size of 13% or less [page 15, para 4 of machine translation]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a coefficient of variation of a grain-size distribution of 30% or less, as taught by Kubota for the predictable advantage of can suppress coloration when viewed from an oblique direction, and can further suppress bright spots in partial visual recognition. [page 3, para. 3 of MT], Regarding claim 7, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 1 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the scattering particles comprise a plurality of particles having different average particle sizes. Im and Kubota are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Kubota teaches the scattering particles comprise a plurality of particles having different average particle sizes, (The average particle diameter of the particles can be calculated by the following operations (A1) to (A3), for example. (A1) Take the through observation image of the anti-glare film with an optical microscope. The magnification is preferably 500 to 2000 times. (A2) Extract any 10 particles from the observation image, and calculate the particle size of each particle. The particle size is measured in the form of the straight-line distance between the two straight lines with the largest distance between the above two straight lines when the cross section of the particle is sandwiched by any two parallel straight lines. (A3) Perform the same operation 5 times in the observation image of another screen of the same sample, and take the value obtained by averaging the number of 50 particle diameters in total as the average particle diameter of the particles, [page 15, para 3 of machine translation]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate the scattering particles comprise a plurality of particles having different average particle sizes, as taught by Kubota for the predictable advantage of can suppress coloration when viewed from an oblique direction, and can further suppress bright spots in partial visual recognition. [page 3, para. 3 of MT], Regarding claim 8, Modified Im teaches the resin film according to claim 7 (see above), Kubota teaches, wherein the scattering particles have a difference in average particle size of the plurality of particles of at most 2.0 μm, (The average particle diameter of the particles is preferably 0.5 μm or more and 5.0 μm or less, [page 14, para. 5]). Regarding claim 18, Im teaches the resin film according to claim 16 (see above), Im doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the scattering particles have an average particle size of at least 1 μm and at most 10 μm. Im and Kubota are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Kubota teaches the scattering particles have an average particle size of at least 1 μm and at most 10 μm, (The average particle diameter of the particles is preferably 0.5 μm or more and 5.0 μm or less, [page 14, para. 5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the film of Im to incorporate the scattering particles have an average particle size of at least 1 μm and at most 10 μm, as taught by Kubota for the predictable advantage of can suppress coloration when viewed from an oblique direction, and can further suppress bright spots in partial visual recognition. [page 3, para. 3 of MT] , 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of KUBOTA et al. (TW 202141072, Examiner provided machine translation), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0207298) . Regarding claim 19 , modified Im teaches the resin film according to claim 18 (see above), The modified Im doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g. Im and Suzuki are related as optical film layer with coated anti-glare film. Suzuki teaches at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g (surface are of the hollow silica is preferably from 20 to 300 m2/g, more preferably from 30 to 120 m.sup.2/g, most preferably from 40 to 90 m.sup.2/g, [0302]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified film of Im to incorporate at least one scattering particle of the scattering particles has a surface area of at least 5 m2/g, as taught by Suzuki for the predictable advantage of getting high surface uniformity with decreasing drying unevenness and wind unevenness and sufficient scratch resistance [0012], Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30 pm PST. 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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. /R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/827,202 Page 14 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights