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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (JP 2022-046445A) in view of Suzuki (JP 2023-068038A)
Regarding Claim 1,
Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) An optical multilayer body, wherein a transparent substrate (transparent substrate film), a hard coat layer (hard coat layer), an adhesion layer (adhesion layer, “… Moreover, an adhesive layer can be provided on the surface of the transparent base film on which the low refractive index layer is not formed so that the upper and lower outermost layers of the antireflection film become a low refractive index layer and an adhesive layer. Although it does not restrict | limit especially as a material used for a contact bonding layer, For example, an acrylic adhesive, a ultraviolet curable adhesive, a thermosetting adhesive etc. can be mentioned…”)), an optical function layer (optical functional layer), and an antifouling layer (antifouling layer) are stacked in that order.
Kobayashi et al does not disclose wherein when the optical multilayer body is subjected to a sliding test of 500 reciprocations at a load of 250 g using a sliding tool having a Shore D hardness of 40 and a diameter of 0.8 mm, an absolute value of a change amount Ab* in a b* value in an L*a*b* color system before and after sliding at a sliding portion is 1.9 or less.
Suzuki et al discloses wherein when the optical multilayer body is subjected to a sliding (“..(5) L* represented by the following formula (4) by SCE (Specular Component Exclude, a method of measuring reflected color that does not take specular light into consideration) before and after a scratch resistance test by horizontally reciprocating steel wool 500 times The amount of change in a*b* values (ΔE value) is 0.5 or less…”) Suzuki et al does not explicitly disclose test of 500 reciprocations at a load of 250 g using a sliding tool having a Shore D hardness of 40 and a diameter of 0.8 mm, an absolute value of a change amount Ab* in a b* value in an L*a*b* color system before and after sliding at a sliding portion is 1.9 or less. On would have recognized test of 500 reciprocations at a load of 250 g using a sliding tool having a Shore D hardness of 40 and a diameter of 0.8 mm, an absolute value of a change amount Ab* in a b* value in an L*a*b* color system before and after sliding at a sliding portion is 1.9 or less as a result-effective variable able to be optimized for improving abrasion resistance and maintaining optical appearance after repeated rubbing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kobyashi et al to include Suzuki et al’s test of 500 reciprocations at a load of 250 g using a sliding tool having a Shore D hardness of 40 and a diameter of 0.8 mm, an absolute value of a change amount Ab* in a b* value in an L*a*b* color system before and after sliding at a sliding portion is 1.9 or less motivated by the desire to optimize and maintain optical properties after repeated mechanical contact.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) to wherein the optical function layer includes a first high refractive index layer, a first low refractive index layer, a second high refractive index layer, and a second low refractive index layer in order from a side closer to the adhesion layer, wherein the first high refractive index layer and the second high refractive index layer have higher refractive indices than the first low refractive index layer and the second low refractive index layer, respectively,wherein a physical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer is 10 nm or more and 20 nm or less,wherein a physical film thickness of the first low refractive index layer is 2 nm or more and 15 nm or less, andwherein a physical film thickness of the second low refractive index layer is 70 nm or more and 85 nm or less. One would have recognized the specific thickness ranges is a result-effective variable able to be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain desired reflection characteristics.
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein the optical function layer includes a first high refractive index layer, a first low refractive index layer, a second high refractive index layer, and a second low refractive index layer in order from a side closer to the adhesion layer,wherein the first high refractive index layer and the second high refractive index layer have higher refractive indices than the first low refractive index layer and the second low refractive index layer, respectively,wherein an optical film thickness of the first high refractive index layer is 20 nm or more and 48.8 nm or less,wherein an optical film thickness of the first low refractive index layer is 2.9 nm or more and 21.9 nm or less, andwherein an optical film thickness of the second low refractive index layer is 102 nm or more and 124.1 nm or less. One would have recognized the specific thickness ranges is a result-effective variable able to be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain desired reflection
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein a total physical film thickness of the optical function layer is 170 nm or more and 220 nm or less. One would have recognized the specific thickness ranges is a result-effective variable able to be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain desired reflection. The thickness of the optical films is selected based on desired wavelength reflection characteristics.
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein a total optical film thickness of the optical function layer is 320 nm or more and 410 nm or less. One would have recognized the specific thickness ranges is a result-effective variable able to be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain desired reflection
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein a physical film thickness of the antifouling layer is 2 nm or more and 10 nm or less. One would have recognized the specific thickness ranges is a result-effective variable able to be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain desired reflection
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein the optical function layer is a sputtered film (“…(15) In the optical laminate according to the above aspect, the adhesion layer and the optical functional layer may be formed by sputtering...”)
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein the antifouling layer is a vapor-deposited film (“...(19) The method for producing an optical laminate according to a fifth aspect of the present invention is the method for producing an optical laminate according to the above aspect, which is a step of forming a low refractive index layer with a vacuum degree of less than 0.5 Pa. A step of forming an optical functional layer alternately having a step of forming a high refractive index layer with a vacuum degree of less than 1.0 Pa, and a glow discharge treatment of surface-treating the surface of the optical functional layer with a glow discharge. The step includes an antifouling layer forming step of forming the antifouling layer made of a vapor-deposited film on which an antifouling material is vapor-deposited by vacuum vapor deposition on one surface side of the optical functional layer…”)
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) wherein the antifouling layer contains a fluorine-based compound (“...The antifouling layer 15 of the present embodiment is made of a vapor-deposited film on which an antifouling material is vapor-deposited. In the present embodiment, the antifouling layer 15 is formed by vacuum-depositing a fluorine-based organic compound as an antifouling material on one surface of the low refractive index layer 14b constituting the optical functional layer 14. In the present embodiment, since the antifouling material contains a fluorine-based organic compound, the optical laminate 10 has even better abrasion resistance and alkali resistance…”)
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to Kobayashi et al and Suzuki et al, Kobayashi et al discloses (ABSTRACT) An article comprising the optical multilayer body according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights