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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “a plurality of grooves/holes defined therein and open at the first layer and/or the second surface” lacks clarity. Please consider clarifying and simplifying claim language.
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 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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US PUB 2022/0011468; herein after “Hart”) in view of SHIMATSU et al. (US PUB 2016/0091632; herein after “SHIMATSU”).
Hart and SHIMATSU disclose a display article with a substrate having a textured surface region having antiglare characteristics and an antireflective coating thereon. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Hart teaches a display apparatus (a display article 100, see FIGS. 1C-1E) comprising: a display panel comprising a display element (i.e., employing a display device (e.g., for display panel) having a pixel density (e.g., display element) of 140 pixels per inch, para. [0070-last 2 lines]); a cover window (a substrate 10) on the display panel (see para. [0071]); and an anti-reflection layer (and antireflective coating 60) on the cover window (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E), the anti-reflection layer comprising: a first layer having a refractive index (a low refractive index layer 62), a second layer on the first layer and having a refractive index (a high refractive index layer 64) less than the refractive index of the first layer (see para. [0075]), the first layer comprising a first surface facing the second layer and a second surface facing the cover window (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E), and the first layer comprising a plurality of holes (structural features 20, 22a’ (e.g., pillars, holes, etc.)) defined therein and open at both the first surface and the second surface (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Hart teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a second layer having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the first layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor SHIMATSU teaches FIGS. 1 and 2 are cross sectional views showing embodiments of the display device 10 of the present invention. The display devices 10 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 each has a display element 1 having thereon an antireflection film 2 having a transparent substrate 21 having thereon a hardcoat layer 22, a high refractive index layer 23, and a low refractive index layer 24. The display device 10 shown in FIG. 2 further has a touch panel 3 disposed between the display element 1 and the antireflection film 2 (para. [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hart such that an antireflection film having a transparent substrate (a cover window) having a high refractive index layer (a first layer), and a low refractive index layer (a second layer) thus second layer having less refractive index than the first layer as taught by SHIMATSU, for the purpose of preventing outside light from being reflected include an antiglare treatment for reducing specularly reflected light with surface unevenness, and an antireflection treatment for reducing the reflectance through an interference effect of a multilayer thin film.
Regarding claim 11, Hart teaches a display apparatus (a display article 100, see FIGS. 1C-1E) comprising: a display panel comprising a display element (para. [0070-last 2 lines]); a cover window (10) on the display panel; and an anti-reflection layer (60) on the cover window, the anti-reflection layer comprising: a first layer having a refractive index (62), a second layer (64)on the first layer and having a refractive index less than the refractive index of the first layer, the first layer comprising a first surface facing the second layer and a second surface facing the cover window (see para. [0075], and as set forth in claim 1 above), and the first layer comprising a plurality of grooves (structural features 20, 22a’ (e.g., pillars (grooves), holes, etc.)) defined therein and open at the second surface (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Hart teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a second layer having a refractive index less than a refractive index of the first layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor SHIMATSU teaches FIGS. 1 and 2 are cross sectional views showing embodiments of the display device 10 of the present invention. The display devices 10 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 each has a display element 1 having thereon an antireflection film 2 having a transparent substrate 21 having thereon a hardcoat layer 22, a high refractive index layer 23, and a low refractive index layer 24. The display device 10 shown in FIG. 2 further has a touch panel 3 disposed between the display element 1 and the antireflection film 2 (para. [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hart such that an antireflection film having a transparent substrate (a cover window) having a high refractive index layer (a first layer), and a low refractive index layer (a second layer) thus second layer having less refractive index than the first layer as taught by SHIMATSU, for the purpose of preventing outside light from being reflected include an antiglare treatment for reducing specularly reflected light with surface unevenness, and an antireflection treatment for reducing the reflectance through an interference effect of a multilayer thin film.
Regarding claim 21, Hart teaches a display apparatus (a display article 100, see FIGS. 1C-1E) comprising: a display panel comprising a display element (para. [0070-last 2 lines]); a cover window (10) on the display panel; and an anti-reflection layer (60) on the cover window, the anti-reflection layer comprising: a plurality of layers each having a refractive index (alternating layers of low and high refractive index 62 and 64, see FIGS. 1C-1D, para. [0075] and as set forth in claim 1 above); the refractive index of an outermost layer among the plurality of layers being less than all remaining refractive indices (para. [0075]), and an innermost layer among the plurality of layers being closest to the display panel and including a plurality of voids defined therein (structural features 20, 22a’ (e.g., pillars, holes (voids), etc., as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Hart teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of the refractive index of an outermost layer among the plurality of layers being less than all remaining refractive indices.
However, in a related field of endeavor SHIMATSU teaches FIGS. 1 and 2 are cross sectional views showing embodiments of the display device 10 of the present invention. The display devices 10 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 each has a display element 1 having thereon an antireflection film 2 having a transparent substrate 21 having thereon a hardcoat layer 22, a high refractive index layer 23, and a low refractive index layer 24. The display device 10 shown in FIG. 2 further has a touch panel 3 disposed between the display element 1 and the antireflection film 2 (para. [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hart such that an antireflection film having a transparent substrate (a cover window) having a high refractive index layer (a first layer), and a low refractive index layer (a second layer) thus second layer having less refractive index than the first layer as taught by SHIMATSU, for the purpose of preventing outside light from being reflected include an antiglare treatment for reducing specularly reflected light with surface unevenness, and an antireflection treatment for reducing the reflectance through an interference effect of a multilayer thin film.
Regarding claim 22, Hart according to claim 21 further teaches the innermost layer includes a first surface facing the outermost layer and a second surface facing the cover window, and the plurality of voids which are defined in the innermost layer includes a plurality of holes each open at both the first surface and the second surface (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Regarding claim 23, Hart according to claim 21 further teaches the innermost layer includes a first surface facing the outermost layer and a second surface facing the cover window, and the plurality of voids which are defined in the innermost layer includes a plurality of grooves each open at the second surface (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Regarding claim 24, Hart according to claim 21 further teaches the innermost layer forms an interface with the outermost layer (as shown at least in FIGS. 1D-1E, para. [0095] and [0110]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-20 and 25 are 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:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the closest prior art Hart et al. (US PUB 2022/0011468) or Yong et al. (US 5582859) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding “a material density of the second layer is greater than a material density of the first layer”.
Claims 3-10, 13-20 depend upon allowable claim 2 and/or 12.
Regarding claim 25, the closest prior art Hart et al. (US PUB 2022/0011468) or Yong et al. (US 5582859) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding “the innermost layer forms an interface with a layer closest thereto among the plurality of layers, and a thickness portion of the innermost layer is between the layer closest thereto and each of the voids”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. OTA et al. (US PUB 2018/0240847) teaches “The insulating film forming treatment is a treatment for stacking (layering) an insulating film of SiO on the front surface of the semiconductor substrate 131 (on the anti-reflection film 141) and in the inside of the through-holes 131A and the grooves 131B. For example, the insulating film is stacked (layered) by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) method.”, paragraph 0113, FIG. 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights