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
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 08/06/2024 and 08/12/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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 3, 6 and 8 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.
The term “about” in claims 3, 6 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, Claim 3 limitation of “between about 100nm and about 10mm” will be taken as “between
For examination purposes, Claim 6 limitation of “between about 50nm and about 5mm” will be taken as “
For examination purposes, Claim 8 limitation of “between about 10nm and 10μm” will be taken as “between .
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 16-18 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.
With respect to Claim 15, lines 1-2 state “a first metal layer on a second surface of the resin” whereas these limitations were previously mentioned in Claim 9 from which Claim 15 depends from. By stating “a first metal layer on a second surface of the resin”, it appears the applicant is introducing a new limitation. For examination purposes, “a first metal layer on a second surface of the resin” will be taken as “the first metal layer on the second surface of the resin”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon (US 2018/0113525 A1) in further view of Fujimura et al., (Fujimura hereafter) (JP 2017-227901 A), of record.
With respect to Claim 1, Kweon teaches a transparent reflective panel (10, Figure 1) comprising: a plurality of metal clusters (20, Figure 1).
Kweon fails to teach a light transmissive medium; wherein each of the metal clusters comprises unit metal bodies spaced apart from each other and formed on the light transmissive medium.
Kweon teaches a touch panel and Fujimura teaches a reflective screen.
Fujimura teaches a light transmissive medium (10, Figure 1); wherein each of the metal clusters (31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]) comprises unit metal bodies (¶[0026] and [0052]) spaced apart from each other (¶[0026] and [0052]) and formed on the light transmissive medium (10, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kweon having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Fujimura having a light transmissive medium; wherein each of the metal clusters comprises unit metal bodies spaced apart from each other and formed on the light transmissive medium for the purpose of light scattering increasing the reflection-reducing effect, ¶[0036].
With respect to Claim 2, Kweon further teaches wherein the metal clusters (20, Figure 1) are arranged with the same distance (Table 1) along a first direction (X) (Table 1) and a second direction (Y) (¶[0066] and Table 1) perpendicular to the first direction.
With respect to Claim 3, Kweon further teaches, as best understood, wherein a distance (Table 1) between the metal clusters (20, Figure 1) adjacent to each other is between about 100nm and about 10mm (Table 1).
With respect to Claim 4, Kweon teaches wherein each of the metal clusters (20, Figure 1) has a boundary (30, Figure 1), and are arranged within the boundary (30, Figure 1).
Kweon fails to teach wherein the unit metal bodies are arranged within the boundary of the metal cluster.
Fujimura teaches wherein the unit metal bodies (¶[0026] and [0052]) are arranged within the boundary of the metal cluster (31, Figure 1, may be contained in the hard coat layer 40, Figure 1; see also ¶[0029])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Kweon having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Fujimura having the unit metal bodies arranged within the boundary of the metal cluster for the purpose of light scattering increasing the reflection-reducing effect, ¶[0036].
With respect to Claim 5, Kweon further teaches wherein the boundary of (30, Figure 1) the metal cluster (20, Figure 1) has a round shape (20 has a diameter which is associated with circular shaped objects, ¶[0038]).
With respect to Claim 6, Kweon further teaches, as best understood, wherein a size of the round shape (if 20 has a diameter, therefore 30 has a diameter as it is disposed on 20, ¶[0038]) of the boundary is between about 50nm and about 5mm (Table 1; see also ¶[0038]).
With respect to Claim 7, Kweon further teaches wherein the unit metal bodies (20, Figure 1) are arranged randomly (¶[0038]) inside of the boundary (30, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 8, Kweon further teaches, as best understood, wherein a size of each of the unit metal bodies (20, Figure 1) is between about 10nm and 10μm (Table 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Fujimura (JP 2017-227901 A), of record, in further in view of Liu (US 10,153,461).
With respect to Claim 9, Fujimura discloses a method for manufacturing a transparent reflective panel (Figure 1), the method comprising: coating a resin (coating a resin, ¶[0053]) in which a plurality of protrusions (plurality of 31, light scattering body protrudes to the surface of the light scatterer, ¶[0031]) is formed on a plate (substrate, ¶[0031]), to cover the protrusions (¶[0031]); forming a film (film, ¶[0083]) on a first surface of the resin (resin, ¶[0053]); after solidifying the resin (resin, ¶[0053]); forming a first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]) on a second surface of the resin (resin, ¶[0053]); pressurizing (¶[0082]) the first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1) on a second metal layer (another one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]) formed on a light transmissive medium (10, Figure 1);
Fujimura fails to teach detaching the mold from the resin; heat-treating the light transmissive medium, to melt the second metal layer; and removing the light transmissive medium, to remain the second metal layer on the first metal layer.
Fujimura teaches a reflective screen and Liu teaches a display panel in which the reflective screen can be used in.
Liu teaches coating a resin (51, Figure 7B) on a mold (60, Figure 7B) in which a plurality of protrusions (51P, Figure 7B) is formed on a plate (11, Figure 7B), detaching (mold includes a stamper or the like, column 8, lines 38-40, and removed, column 8, lines 51-54) the mold (60, Figure 7B) from the resin (51, Figure 7B), to melt (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D); and removing the light transmissive medium (photo sensitive material 51, Figure 7B; see also column 8, lines 31-33), to remain the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D) on the first metal layer (18, Figure 7B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Liu having the method of coating a resin on a mold in which a plurality of protrusions is formed on a plate, detaching the mold from the resin, forming a layer on a second surface of the resin which is exposed to outside as the mold is separated for the purpose of accuracy of size of protrusions and high transmittance for the light displayed by the display panel, and enhancing brightness, column 9, lines 8-11.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2017-227901 A), of record, in view of Liu (US 10,153,461), as applied to Claim 9 above, in further view of Koda (US 10,350,932).
With respect to Claim 10, Fujimura in view of Liu teach the method of claim 9 and the first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026], of Fujimura) and the second metal layer (another one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]).
Fujimura in view of Liu fail to teach wherein the first meal layer comprises gold (Au), and the second metal layer comprises silver (Ag).
Koda teaches wherein the first meal layer (22, Figure 3) comprises gold (Au) (column 7, lines 48-49), and the second metal layer (additional layer 22, Figure 3) comprises silver (Ag) (column 7, lines 48-49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura in view of Liu having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Koda having the first meal layer comprises gold (Au), and the second metal layer comprises silver (Ag) for the purpose of high reflectivity, column 7, lines 45-48.
With respect to Claim 11, Fujimura in view of Liu teach the method of claim 9 and the plurality of protrusions.
Fujimura in view of Liu fail to teach wherein each of the protrusions has a cylinder shape.
Koda teaches wherein each of the protrusions (45, Figure 8) has a cylinder shape (semielliptical shape, column 11, lines 16-19).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura in view of Liu having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Koda having each of the protrusions has a cylinder shape for the purpose of light diffusion.
With respect to Claim 12, Fujimura in view of Liu teach the method of claim 9 and the plurality of protrusions.
Fujimura in view of Liu fail to teach wherein the protrusions are arranged with the same distance along a first direction (X) and a second direction (Y) perpendicular to the first direction from a first surface of the plate.
Koda teaches wherein the protrusions (45, Figure 8) are arranged with the same distance along a first direction (X) (column 11, lines 11-47) and a second direction (Y) (column 11, lines 11-47) perpendicular to the first direction from a first surface of the plate (41, Figure 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura in view of Liu having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Koda having the protrusions are arranged with the same distance along a first direction (X) and a second direction (Y) perpendicular to the first direction from a first surface of the plate for the purpose of even light diffusion.
With respect to Claim 13, Fujimura in view of Liu teach the method of claim 9 and the film (film, ¶[0083], of Fujimura).
Fujimura in view of Liu fail to teach wherein the film comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Koda teaches wherein the film (protective layer, column 8, lines 9-13) comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (column 8, lines 9-13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura in view of Liu having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Koda having the film comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for the purpose of wavelength selection width and light absorption, (column 8, lines 4-8).
With respect to Claim 14, Fujimura teaches the method of claim 9, the first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]), and the second metal layer (another one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]).
Fujimura fails to teach wherein in the heat-treating the light transmissive medium to melt the second metal layer, the second metal layer making contact with the first metal layer is melted to be attached to the first metal layer.
Liu teaches wherein in the heat-treating the light transmissive medium (photo sensitive material 51, Figure 7B; see also column 8, lines 31-33) to melt (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D), the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D) making contact with the first metal layer (18, Figure 7B) is melted (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) to be attached to the first metal layer (18, Figure 7B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Liu having the heat-treating the light transmissive medium to melt the second metal layer, the second metal layer making contact with the first metal layer is melted to be attached to the first metal layer for the purpose of accuracy of size of protrusions and high transmittance for the light displayed by the display panel, and enhancing brightness, column 9, lines 8-11.
With respect to Claim 15, Fujimura teaches the method of claim 9 and the resin (resin, ¶[0053]).
Fujimura fails to teach wherein as the mold is detached from the resin, a plurality of space portions is formed in the resin by the protrusions.
Liu teaches coating a resin (51, Figure 7B) on a mold (60, Figure 7B), wherein as the mold (60, Figure 7B) is detached (mold includes a stamper or the like, column 8, lines 38-40, and removed, column 8, lines 51-54) from the resin (51, Figure 7B), a plurality of space portions (spaces between 51P, Figure 7B) is formed in the resin (51, Figure 7B) by the protrusions (51P, Figure 7B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Liu having the method of coating a resin on a mold in which a plurality of protrusions is formed on a plate, detaching the mold from the resin, forming a layer on a second surface of the resin which is exposed to outside as the mold is separated for the purpose of accuracy of size of protrusions and high transmittance for the light displayed by the display panel, and enhancing brightness, column 9, lines 8-11.
With respect to Claim 16, Fujimura further teaches, as best understood, wherein in the forming (¶[0082]) the first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1) on the second surface of the resin (30 is made of resin, ¶[0053]), the first metal layer (one of 31, Figure 1) is formed in the space portions (spaces of 30, Figure 1) of the resin (30 is made of resin, ¶[0053]).
With respect to Claim 17, Fujimura teaches, as best understood, the method of claim 16 and the second metal layer (another one of 31, Figure 1, is made of metallic inorganic particles, ¶[0026]).
Fujimura fails to teach wherein in the heat-treating the light transmissive medium to melt the second metal layer, the second metal layer facing the first metal layer formed in the space portions is melted to be formed as unit metal bodies in the light transmissive medium.
Liu teaches wherein in the heat-treating the light transmissive medium (photo sensitive material 51, Figure 7B; see also column 8, lines 31-33) to melt (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D), the second metal layer (52, Figure 7D) facing the first metal layer (18, Figure 7B) is formed as unit metal bodies (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) in the light transmissive medium (photo sensitive material 51, Figure 7B; see also column 8, lines 31-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Liu having wherein in the heat-treating the light transmissive medium to melt the second metal layer, the second metal layer facing the first metal layer formed in the space portions is melted to be formed as unit metal bodies in the light transmissive medium for the purpose of accuracy of size of protrusions and high transmittance for the light displayed by the display panel, and enhancing brightness, column 9, lines 8-11.
With respect to Claim 18, Fujimura teaches, as best understood, the method of claim 17.
Fujimura fails to teach wherein the unit metal bodies are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in the light transmissive medium, as the space portions are spaced apart from each other.
Liu teaches wherein the unit metal bodies (material cured to form another layer, column 8, lines 51-54) are arranged to be spaced apart (¶[0026] and [0052]) from each other in the light transmissive medium (photo sensitive material 51, Figure 7B; see also column 8, lines 31-33)., as the space portions are spaced apart (¶[0026] and [0052]) from each other.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Fujimura having the transparent reflective panel with the teachings of Liu having wherein the unit metal bodies are arranged to be spaced apart from each other in the light transmissive medium, as the space portions are spaced apart from each other for the purpose of accuracy of size of protrusions and high transmittance for the light displayed by the display panel, and enhancing brightness, column 9, lines 8-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights