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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, replace “harder” with “more” in order to better characterize applicant’s invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukunaga et al. (WO2020031968 A1; US 20210316542 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent document in the rejection).
As to claim 1, Fukunaga teaches a resin film laminate (hard coat film) comprising a base layer containing a thermoplastic resin (abstract and 0092) and a hard coat layer which is a cured coating film layer on one side of the base layer (0038 and 0092). Fukunaga further teaches that the hard coat layer contains fluorine-containing leveling agent (0065).
As to claim 1, Fukunaga teaches claimed invention except for the properties “a surface roughness of the hard coat layer is 10 nm or less, an atomic concentration of fluorine…resolved XPS.” However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01(I). The examiner submits that at present no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat layer and the hard coat layer of Fukunaga as set forth previously. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the hard coat layer of Fukunaga inherently has the claimed properties. Alternatively, the claimed properties would obviously be present once the hard coat layer of Fukunaga is provided.
As to claim 2, Fukunaga is silent as to disclosing claimed property of the contact angle of propylene glycol monomethyl ether. However, as set forth previously, no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat film and the hard coat film of Fukunaga. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the hard coat layer of Fukunaga. Alternatively, the claimed property would obviously be present once the hard coat layer of Fukunaga is provided.
As to claim 4, Fukunaga discloses that the pencil hardness of the hard coat layer is 2H or harder (0088). Alternatively, as set forth previously, no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat layer and the hard coat layer of Fukunaga as set forth previously. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the hard coat layer of Fukunaga would inherently have the claimed pencil hardness of H or more.
As to claim 7, the claim recitation “which is used for an insert molding application” is deemed to be an intended use in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Given that the hard coat film of Fukunaga and applicant is identical to that of the presently claimed in terms of structure and composition, it meets the intended use of the claimed hard coat film.
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) 1-5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeya et al. (WO 2019163829 A1; US 20210053330 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent document in the rejection) in view of Fukunaga et al. (WO2020031968 A1; US 20210316542 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent document in the rejection).
As to claim 1, Kakeya discloses an anti-reflection film (hard coat film) comprising a base material layer including thermoplastic resin and a hard coat layer on at least one surface of the base material layer (claim 23), wherein the hard coat layer is a cured coating film layer (0142). Further, Kakeya discloses that the hard coat layer contains leveling agent (0141).
As to claim 1, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Kakeya is that Kakeya is silent as to disclosing fluorine-containing leveling agent in the hard coat layer.
Fukunaga teaches a resin film laminate (hard coat film) comprising a base layer containing a thermoplastic resin (abstract and 0092) and a hard coat layer which is a cured coating film layer on one side of the base layer (0038 and 0092). Fukunaga further teaches that the hard coat layer contains fluorine-containing leveling agent (0065).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any leveling agent including the fluorine-containing leveling agent of Fukunaga and include it in the hard coat layer of Kakeya, because Kakeya desires leveling agent in the hard coat layer and selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
As to claim 1, Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga is silent as to disclosing properties “a surface roughness of the hard coat layer is 10 nm or less, an atomic concentration of fluorine…resolved XPS.” However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01(I). The examiner submits that at present no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat layer and the hard coat layer of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga as set forth previously. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the hard coat layer of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga inherently has the claimed properties.
As to claim 2, Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga is silent as to disclosing claimed property of the contact angle of propylene glycol monomethyl ether. However, as set forth previously, no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat film and the hard coat film of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the hard coat layer of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga.
As to claim 3, Kakeya discloses that the hard coat layer comprising a photopolymerization initiator and urethane-acrylate oligomer (0139). The examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “urethane(meth) acrylate” as recited in claim encompasses urethane methacrylate and urethane acrylate.
As to claim 3, Kakeya is silent as to disclosing solid inorganic particles.
Fukunaga discloses that he hard coat comprises inorganic oxide nanoparticles e.g. silica nanoparticles (0060). The examiner submits that present application and Fukunaga discloses same type of silica nanoparticles (see 0037 of the published application). Accordingly, it is clear that Fukunaga discloses solid inorganic particles as claimed. It would have been obvious to select solid inorganic particles as claimed and as rendered obvious from Fukunaga, given that such solid inorganic particles have been used in the formation of hard coat layer, and doing so would be obvious for the purpose of forming a hard coat layer of Kakeya.
As to claim 4, Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga is silent as to disclosing claimed pencil hardness of the hard coat layer of H or more. However, as set forth previously, no difference is seen between the structure or composition of the claimed hard coat layer and the hard coat layer of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned property would inherently be present in the hard coat layer of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga.
As to claim 5, Kakeya discloses an anti-reflection layer containing low-refractive index layer on the side of the hard coat layer opposite to the base material layer (claim 23). Further, Kakeya discloses that the hard coat layer has a refractive index of e.g. 1.49 (0144) and the low-refractive index layer has a refractive index of e.g. 1.31 (0078). Therefore, it is clear that the low-refractive index layer of Kakeya has a refractive index that is lower than the refractive index of the hard coat layer by 0.05 or more.
As to claim 7, the claim recitation “which is used for an insert molding application” is deemed to be an intended use in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. Given that the hard coat film of Kakeya as modified by Fukunaga and applicant is identical to that of the presently claimed in terms of structure and composition, it meets the intended use of the claimed hard coat film.
As to claim 8, the anti-reflection film of Kakeya is used for applications such as display portion of a computer, television, plasma display, surface of polarizing plate used for liquid crystal display, sunglass lens etc. (0035), which suggests a resin molded article.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeya et al. (WO 2019163829 A1; US 20210053330 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent document in the rejection) in view of Fukunaga et al. (WO2020031968 A1; US 20210316542 A1 is relied upon as English equivalent document in the rejection), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shibayama et al. (US 20120281287 A1).
As to claim 6, Kakeya discloses that the low-refractive-index layer contains fluorine based leveling agent (0083).
Kakeya is silent as to disclosing silicon-containing slip agent.
Shibayama discloses anti-reflection film having excellent optical property containing hard coat layer (abstract) and low refractive index layer containing water-repellant material for the purpose that dirt such as fingerprints hardly adheres to the surface of the anti-reflection film and the adhered dirt is cleanly removed (0190). As the water repellant material, Shibayama discloses silicon compound such as BYK-3500 (0190), which is identical to the silicon-containing slip agent disclosed by the present application (see 0069 of the published application). As such, Shibayama discloses claimed silicon containing slip agent.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a water repellent agent (silicon containing slip agent) such as BYK-3500 disclosed by Shibayama and use it in the low refractive index layer, motivated by the purpose that dirt such as fingerprints hardly adheres to the surface of the anti-reflection film and the adhered dirt is cleanly removed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights