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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihara et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2008/0138606 A1 (cited in the IDS of November 12, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshihara discloses: An optical layered body comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a light-transmitting substrate (light-transparent base material; paragraphs [0016], [0127]-[0129] of Yoshihara); and
an antiglare layer and a low refractive index layer disposed in the stated order on one surface of the light-transmitting substrate (an anti-dazzling layer may be provided between the transparent base material and a hardcoat layer or low-refractive index layer; paragraphs [0016]-[0020], [0130], [0131], [0157]-[0160] of Yoshihara);
wherein a luminous reflectance (%) is 3.0% or less (reflectance values of 0.9% or 1.2%, wherein the anti-reflective effects of the device of Yoshihara are based on visible reflectance; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0014], [0245], [0246] and TABLES 1, 2 of Yoshihara); and
the low refractive index layer has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of projections and depressions of 4 nm or less and a ten-point average roughness Rz of the projections and depressions of 60 nm or less, where the Ra and the Rz are measured in any 5-μm square region of a surface of the low refractive index layer (in a planar area of 5 μm2 in the outermost surface of the low-refractive index layer, the ten-point mean roughness (Rz) is not more than 100 nm, preferably not more than 80 nm, and the arithmetical mean roughness (Ra) is not less than 1 nm and not more than 30 nm, and, preferably, the lower limit of the arithmetical mean roughness (Ra) is not less than 2 nm while the upper limit is not more than 25 nm; paragraphs [0114]-[0125], [0221] of Yoshihara).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshihara discloses: wherein the surface of the low refractive index layer has a water contact angle of 102° or less (the low-refractive index layer has a contact angle with water of not less than 90°, preferably not less than 100°, wherein specific examples may be 110° or higher; paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0232], [0233], [0245], [0246] and TABLES 1, 2 of Yoshihara).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshihara discloses: wherein the low refractive index layer contains hollow silica fine particles (low-refractive index layer may include void-containing silica fine particles; paragraphs [0009], [0045], [0046], [0052] of Yoshihara).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshihara discloses: A polarizing plate comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features): a polarizing element; and the optical layered body according to claim 1, on a surface of the polarizing element (use of antireflective film on liquid crystal display; paragraphs [0004]-[0009], [0016] of Yoshihara).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshihara discloses: A display panel comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features) the optical layered body according to claim 1, or a polarizing plate comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features): a polarizing element; and the optical layered body according to claim 1 on a surface of the polarizing element (use of antireflective film on liquid crystal display; paragraphs [0004]-[0009], [0016] of Yoshihara).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshihara discloses: An image display device comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features) the optical layered body according to claim 1, or a polarizing plate comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features): a polarizing element; and the optical layered body according to claim 1 on a surface of the polarizing element (use of antireflective film on liquid crystal display; paragraphs [0004]-[0009], [0016] of Yoshihara).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara in view of Hart et al., US 2015/0323705 (cited in the IDS of November 12, 2024).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshihara does not appear to disclose: wherein the surface of the low refractive index layer has a hardness of 440 MPa or more as measured by a nanoindentation method at a penetration depth of 30 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Yoshihara discloses the desirability of high hardness for the anti-reflective laminate and specifically the low-refractive index layer, such layer having a nanometer-scale thickness (see, e.g., paragraphs [0014], [0019], [0020], [0046], [0053], [0056], [0067] of Yoshihara).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed minimum hardness at the claimed shallow penetration depth because such hardness would impart the desired durability to the device, as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0014], [0103] of Yoshihara.
Furthermore, Hart is related to Yoshihara with respect to anti-reflective laminates having a desired high hardness.
Hart teaches: wherein the surface of the low refractive index layer has a hardness of 440 MPa or more as measured by a nanoindentation method at a penetration depth of 30 nm (exterior coating of anti-reflective article having a hardness of approximately 6 GPa to 20 GPa at an indentation depth of 30 nm; paragraph [0077] and FIG. 21 of Hart).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed hardness, such as the hardness of Hart, for the exterior layer [low refractive index layer] of Yoshihara because high hardness prevents susceptibility to wear and abrasion [and thus increased durability], as taught in paragraphs [0004], [0009] of Hart.
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshihara discloses: An optical layered body comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a light-transmitting substrate (light-transparent base material; paragraphs [0016], [0127]-[0129] of Yoshihara); and
an antiglare layer and a low refractive index layer disposed in the stated order on one surface of the light-transmitting substrate (an anti-dazzling layer may be provided between the transparent base material and a hardcoat layer or low-refractive index layer; paragraphs [0016]-[0020], [0130], [0131], [0157]-[0160] of Yoshihara);
wherein a luminous reflectance (%) is 3.0% or less (reflectance values of 0.9% or 1.2%, wherein the anti-reflective effects of the device of Yoshihara are based on visible reflectance; Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0014], [0245], [0246] and TABLES 1, 2 of Yoshihara); and
the low refractive index layer has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of projections and depressions of 1.5 nm or less and a ten-point average roughness Rz of the projections and depressions of 30 nm or less, where the Ra and the Rz are measured in any 5-μm square region of a surface of the low refractive index layer (in a planar area of 5 μm2 in the outermost surface of the low-refractive index layer, the ten-point mean roughness (Rz) is not more than 100 nm, preferably not more than 80 nm, and the arithmetical mean roughness (Ra) is not less than 1 nm and not more than 30 nm, and, preferably, the lower limit of the arithmetical mean roughness (Ra) is not less than 2 nm while the upper limit is not more than 25 nm; paragraphs [0114]-[0125], [0221] of Yoshihara).
Yoshihara does not appear to explicitly disclose: a hardness measured by a nanoindentation method at an indenter penetration of 300 nm is higher than a hardness measured by the nanoindentation method at an indenter penetration of 30 nm.
However, it has been held that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render non-obvious an otherwise known invention. MPEP § 2145, Section II, citing In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
In the present case, it appears that a higher hardness at deeper indenter penetration is a known property of thin-film anti-reflective laminates. See, for example, paragraphs [0073]-[0081] and FIG. 21 of Hart, which explain that typically, in nanoindentation measurement methods (such as those using a Berkovich indenter) of a coating that is harder than the underlying substrate, the measured hardness may appear to increase initially due to development of the plastic zone at shallow indentation depths and then increases and reaches a maximum value or plateau at deeper indentation depths, and thereafter, hardness begins to decrease at even deeper indentation depths due to the effect of the underlying substrate, and where a substrate having an increased hardness compared to the coating is utilized, the same effect can be seen, however, the hardness increases at deeper indentation depths due to the effect of the underlying substrate.
Therefore, it appears that in either circumstance of a coating that is harder than the underlying substrate, or a substrate that is harder than the overlying coating, a property of higher hardness at deeper indenter penetration is exhibited, at least at depths corresponding to a fraction of outer layer thickness (see especially paragraphs [0074]-[0076] of Hart).
However, in any event, Hart specifically teaches the claimed: a hardness measured by a nanoindentation method at an indenter penetration of 300 nm is higher than a hardness measured by the nanoindentation method at an indenter penetration of 30 nm (exterior coating of anti-reflective article having a hardness measured at 300 nm indentation depth than at 30 nm indentation depth; paragraph [0077] and FIG. 21 of Hart).
Therefore, even if it is not a latent property of the article of Yoshihara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the exterior layer configuration of Hart, thus resulting in higher hardness at 300 nm versus 30 nm, for the exterior layer [low refractive index layer] of Yoshihara because such high hardness, and the specific exterior layer configuration of Hart, prevents susceptibility to wear and abrasion [and thus increased durability], as taught in paragraphs [0004], [0009], [0077], [0078] and FIG. 21 of Hart.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights