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 (PTO-1449) filed 01/27/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (US 20140049827 A1) (Fujii 1) in view of Fuji (US 11137521 B2) (Fujii 2).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii 1 discloses in at least figure 1, an anti-reflective laminate (antireflection stack 1 fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 2 fig. 1); and
an anti-reflective layer (antireflection layer 3 fig. 1) on (the antireflection layer 3 is on the substrate 2 fig. 1) the substrate (substrate 2 fig. 1) and having a four-layer structure (the antireflection layer 3 is one having a four-layer structure paragraph [0031]) comprising a first refractive index layer (first refractive index layer 31 fig. 1), a second refractive index layer (second refractive index layer 32 fig. 1), a third refractive index layer (third refractive index layer 31 fig. 1), and a fourth refractive index layer (fourth refractive index layer 31 fig. 1) in order from a substrate side (sequentially from the substrate 2 side paragraph [0031]),
wherein the first refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.6 to 1.9 (first refractive index layer 31 having a refractive index of from 1.6 to 1.9 paragraph [0031]), the second refractive index layer has a refractive index of 2.2 to 2.5 (second refractive index layer 32 having a refractive index of from 2.2 to 2.5 paragraph [0031]), the third refractive index layer has a refractive index of 2.0 to 2.3 (a third refractive index layer 33 having a refractive index of from 2.0 to 2.3 paragraph [0031]), and the fourth refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.25 to 1.50 (fourth refractive index layer 34 having a refractive index of from 1.2 to 1.5 paragraph [0031]), and
the first refractive index layer has a thickness of 40 nm to 105 nm (the thickness of the first refractive index layer 31 is preferably from 40 to 100 nm paragraph [0034]), the second refractive index layer has a thickness 30 to 80 nm the thickness of the second refractive index layer 32 is preferably from 30 to 80 nm paragraph [0038]), the third refractive index layer has a thickness of 30 to 90 nm (the thickness of the third refractive index layer 33 is preferably from 30 to 90 nm paragraph [0041]), and the fourth refractive index layer has a thickness of 80 to 100 nm (the thickness of the fourth refractive index layer 34 further preferably from 80 to 100 nm paragraph [0043]).
Fujii 1 does not explicitly disclose, an anti-reflective layer laminated on the substrate,
wherein the first refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.25 to 1.50, the second refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.50 to 2.40, the third refractive index layer has a refractive index of 2.25 to 2.45,
the second refractive index layer has a thickness of 60 nm to 90 nm, the third refractive index layer has a thickness of 70 nm to 100 nm.
However Fujii 2 discloses in at least figure 2, an anti-reflective layer (antireflective film 40 fig. 2) laminated on (low refractive index layers 42a, 42b alternately laminated col. 5 lines 7-8 on the substrate 20 fig. 2) the substrate (substrate 20 fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to laminate the film to the substrate as taught by Fujii 2 in the antireflection stack of Fuji 1. Reflection of light is suppressed by the laminated multilayer structure (col. 5 lines 6-10).
Additionally It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art Fujii 1 teaches a value of a refractive index of from 1.6 to 1.9 which is so close to the claimed range of a refractive index of 1.25 to 1.50 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a refractive index of the first layer such that it is a refractive index of 1.25 to 1.50 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Further In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (the second refractive index layer has a refractive index of 1.50 to 2.40, the third refractive index layer has a refractive index of 2.25 to 2.45, the second refractive index layer has a thickness of 60 nm to 90 nm and the third refractive index layer has a thickness of 80 nm to 110 nm required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art Fujii 1 (second refractive index layer 32 having a refractive index of from 2.2 to 2.5, a third refractive index layer 33 having a refractive index of from 2.0 to 2.3, the thickness of the second refractive index layer 32 is preferably from 30 to 80 nm and the thickness of the third refractive index layer 33 is preferably from 30 to 90 nm). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fujii 1 and Fujii 2 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Fujii 1 further discloses, wherein the second refractive index layer (second refractive index layer 32 fig. 1) comprises a silicon oxide (the second refractive index layer 32 may be two members including silicon oxide paragraph [0037]) and a titanium oxide (the second refractive index layer 32 may be two members including titanium oxide paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fujii 1 and Fujii 2 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Fujii 1 further discloses, wherein a chromaticity coordinate a* of reflected light at an incident angle of 7° (the chromaticity values (chromaticity coordinates x and y as defined in JIS Z8701) of the reflected color at an incident angle of 5° are preferably 0.15 <= x <= 0.30 paragraph [0073] and 7° is shown at 0.22 fig. 2) and an incident angle of 30° (chromaticity coordinates x and y as defined in JIS Z8701) of the reflected color at an incident angle of 5° are preferably 0.15 <= x <= 0.30 paragraph [0073] and 30° is shown at 0.25 fig. 2) is 2.0 or less (the x values for 7° and 30° are 0.22 and 0.25 fig. 2), and a color difference ΔE between reflected lights at an incident angle of 7° and an incident angle of 30° is 4.0 or less (the values for 7° and 30° are 0.22 and 0.25 fig. 2 resulting in a difference of ΔE = 0.22).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fujii 1 and Fujii 2 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Fujii 1 further discloses, wherein a chromaticity coordinate a* of reflected light at an incident angle of 7° (the chromaticity values (chromaticity coordinates x and y as defined in JIS Z8701) of the reflected color at an incident angle of 5° are preferably 0.15 <= x <= 0.30 paragraph [0073] and 7° is shown at 0.22 fig. 2) and an incident angle of 30° (chromaticity coordinates x and y as defined in JIS Z8701) of the reflected color at an incident angle of 5° are preferably 0.15 <= x <= 0.30 paragraph [0073] and 30° is shown at 0.25 fig. 2) is 2.0 or less (the x values for 7° and 30° are 0.22 and 0.25 fig. 2), and a maximum value of distances (a*2 + b*2 )1/2 from a chromaticity coordinate origin to chromaticity coordinates (a*, b*) of reflected lights at an incident angle of 7° ( (a*2 +b*2 )1/2 = (x2 + y2)1/2 = (0.222 +0.222)1/2 = 0.73 ) and an incident angle of 30° (a*2 +b*2 )1/2 = (x2 + y2)1/2 = (0.252 +0.252)1/2 = 0.35) is 6.5 or less (as a result of the values above (a*2 +b*2 )1/2 are less than 6.5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fujii 1 and Fujii 2 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Fujii 1 further discloses,, having a luminous reflectance (SCI Y) of 0.9% or less (The antireflection stack 1 of the present invention preferably has a luminous reflectance (stimulus value Y of reflection as defined in JIS Z8701) of at most 0.2% paragraph [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harkness et al. (US 20230176259 A1) discloses a low reflectivity coating with a fourth sublayer.
Uchida (20150362632 A1) discloses an antireflection coating with only four layers that are laminated.
Fan et al. (US 20180219034 A1) discloses an antireflective coating with a multi-layer coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights