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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has no period at the end of claim 1.
In claim 1, line 5, "when " should read - - in a case that - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregorski (US 2019/0219739)
Regarding claim 1, the Example 2 of Gregorski teaches an anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate (Fig. 11A-19, Table 4-6, [0250-0259, 0066-0067, 0072, 0185-0193], an ion-exchanged glass substrate was provided with light-altering features on one of its surfaces, and an optical coating was then disposed onto the surface having the light-altering features) comprising:
a transparent substrate (the substrate corresponding to the ion-exchanged glass substrate under the light light-altering features and the optical coating, [0253, 0250-0252]) comprising two main surfaces ([0253, 0250-0252]); and
a diffusion layer (the layer corresponding to the light-altering features on one of the surfaces of the glass substrate, [0253, 0250-0251]) and an anti-reflective film (the film corresponding to the optical coating, [0253, 0250-0252]) in this order from a transparent substrate side on one main surface of the transparent substrate ([0250-0253]).
The Example 2 of Gregorski teaches that in a case that reflection on the other main surface of the transparent substrate is eliminated (a single-side, or first side, reflectance was measured at the air-side surface only when removing the reflections from an uncoated back surface, e.g., 114 in FIG. 1-5, of the coated article 100, such as through using index-matching oils on the back surface coupled to an absorber, or other known methods, [0178], Fig. 16) and a light source is incident on the one main surface at an incident angle of 40° (the incident angle of 40° in the data points 1604 in Fig. 16, [0072, 0259]), a* and b* of reflected lights under a D65 light source ([0072, 0259, 0183]) satisfy the following formulas (1) to (4): (1) -6≤a*≤2, (2) -1≤b*≤12, (3) b*≤-2×a*+4, (4) b*≥-2×a*-5 ([0072, 0259], Fig. 16 shows that a*is substantially -1 and b*is substantially -1 at the incident angle of 40° in the data points 1604, therefore the formulas (1) to (4) are satisfied with a*≈-1 and b*≈-1).
Gregorski also teaches that an anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate has a minimal change in visible color in reflectance when the viewing angle is changed, or the same color may be perceived with angular shift ([0190]), and the anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate has an angular color shift of 0.1 or less at all incident illumination angles in a range from the reference illumination angle to about 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees, 40 degrees, 45 degrees, or 60 degrees from the reference illumination angle ([0193, 0190-0192]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of the Example 2 of Gregorski, in a case that reflection on the other main surface of the transparent substrate is eliminated and a light source is incident on the one main surface at an incident angle of 45°, a* and b* of diffusely reflected lights at angles of −15°, 15°, 25°, 45°, 75°, and 110° with respect to a specularly reflected light under a D65 light source satisfy the following formulas (1) to (4): (1) -6≤a*≤2, (2) -1≤b*≤12, (3) b*≤-2×a*+4, (4) b*≥-2×a*-5. The motivation is to provide low color shift that are beneficial for display applications, it help to prevent the device users from distracting or objectionable, particularly under illumination with sharp spectral features such as fluorescent lighting and some LED lighting (Gregorski, [0008, 0178]).
Regarding claim 2, Gregorski also teaches that an anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate has a haze value of 27% or more ([0030, 0052, 0262-0265]). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of the Example 2 of Gregorski, the anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate having a haze value of 30% or more. The motivation is to reduce glare, or minimize eyestrain (Gregorski, [0010]).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9-10 and 13, the Example 2 of Gregorski also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 4) the anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate having a luminous transmittance (Y) of 20% to 90% (the transmittance is in the range of 20% to 90% for line 1504 in Fig. 15, [0258])
(Claim 6) b* of a transmission color under a D65 light source is 5 or less (b* is about 0.5 for 1704 in Fig. 17, [0259]).
(Claim 9) the transparent substrate comprises a glass ([0149, 0154]).
(Claim 10) the transparent substrate comprises at least one resin selected from polyethylene terephthalate, a polycarbonate, acrylic, silicone, and triacetyl cellulose ([0149-0150])
(Claim 13) An image display device comprising the anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate ([0003, 0006-0007])
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregorski as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Fujii (US 2020/0123049).
Regarding claim 5, Gregorski does not teach the following elements.
Fujii (US 2020/0123049) teaches the following elements (Fig. 2, [0319, 0021, 0027, 0048, 0149, 0059-0064]):
(Claim 5) an anti-reflective film has a sheet resistance of 104Ω/□ or more ([0319, 0021, 0027, 0048, 0149]).
(Claim 7) an anti-reflective film has a laminated structure (30 in Fig. 2, [0059-0061]) in which at least two dielectric layers (32 and 34 in Fig. 2, [0059-0061]) having different refractive indices ([0059]) are laminated, at least one (34 in Fig. 2) of the dielectric layers is mainly formed of a Si oxide ([0061]), at least another layer (32 in Fig. 2) among layers in the laminated structure is mainly formed of a mixed oxide of an oxide containing at least one selected from the group A consisting of Mo and W ([0060]) and an oxide containing at least one selected from the group B consisting of Si, Nb, Ti, Zr, Ta, Al, Sn, and In ([0060]), and a content of elements of the group B contained in the mixed oxide is 65 mass % or less ([0060], lower than 50% by mass) with respect to a total of elements of the group A contained in the mixed oxide and the elements of the group B contained in the mixed oxide ([0060])
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Fujii (US 2020/0123049) for the system of Gregorski such that in the system of Gregorski,
(Claim 5) the anti-reflective film has a sheet resistance of 104Ω/□ or more.
(Claim 7) the anti-reflective film has a laminated structure in which at least two dielectric layers having different refractive indices are laminated, at least one of the dielectric layers is mainly formed of a Si oxide, at least another layer among layers in the laminated structure is mainly formed of a mixed oxide of an oxide containing at least one selected from the group A consisting of Mo and W and an oxide containing at least one selected from the group B consisting of Si, Nb, Ti, Zr, Ta, Al, Sn, and In, and a content of elements of the group B contained in the mixed oxide is 65 mass % or less with respect to a total of elements of the group A contained in the mixed oxide and the elements of the group B contained in the mixed oxide
The motivation is to provide an antireflective-film attached transparent substrate which has light ray absorbency and insulating properties, and imparts no yellowish tinge to the light transmitted through the substrate (Fujii (US 2020/0123049), [0008, 0064]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregorski as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Murakami (US 2017/0192133).
Regarding claim 8, Gregorski does not teach the following elements.
Murakami teaches the following elements (Fig. 2-3, [0032-0034, 0037, 0040-0041]):
(Claim 8) an antifouling film (50 in Fig. 2-3, [0032-0034, 0037, 0040-0041]) is on an anti-reflective film (32 in Fig. 2-3).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Murakami for the system of Gregorski such that in the system of Gregorski,
(Claim 8) an antifouling film on the anti-reflective film.
The motivation is to prevent a fingerprint residue that is generated when the optical element is touched by hand, or in order to enable wiping off easily the fingerprint residue even if the fingerprint residue is present (Murakami, [0040]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregorski as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Fujii (US 2019/0285934).
Regarding claims 11-12, Gregorski also teaches that the transparent substrate comprises a glass and at least one resin selected from polyethylene terephthalate, a polycarbonate, acrylic, silicone, and triacetyl cellulose ([0149-0150], the substrate are made from quartz and polymers, the examples of polymers including silicon resins).
Fujii(US 2019/0285934) teaches the following elements (Fig. 2, [0052-0054, 0060]):
(Claim 11) a transparent substrate (4 in Fig. 2, [0052, 0060]) is a laminate comprising a glass and at least one resin ([0052]).
(Claim 12) the glass is chemically strengthened ([0053-0054]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Fujii(US 2019/0285934) for the system of Gregorski such that in the system of Gregorski,
(Claim 11) the transparent substrate is a laminate comprising a glass and at least one resin selected from polyethylene terephthalate, a polycarbonate, acrylic, silicone, and triacetyl cellulose.
(Claim 12) the glass is chemically strengthened.
The motivation is to provide a front plate for protecting the display panel (Fujii(US 2019/0285934), [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests all the combination of an anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an anti-reflective film-attached transparent substrate recited in claim 1, wherein “L* of the diffusely reflected light at −15° is 30 to 60, L* of the diffusely reflected light at 15° is 15 to 35, and L* of the diffusely reflected light at 25° is 5 to 20 under a D65 light source” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights