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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevallier USPA_20130340930_A1 in view of Ohashi WO_2004113966_A1 and Ohashi’ JP_2007114305_A1.
1. Regarding Claim 1, 4, Chevallier discloses a transfer sheet (Figures; Abstract) comprising a first release substrate (Figures 1A – 1C, #10; Paragraphs 0058 – 0062), a transfer layer (Figures 1A – 1C, 20; Paragraphs 0067 – 79 and 0088 – 0100) and a second release substrate (Figures 1A – 1C, #30; Paragraphs 0080 – 0084) in the presented order (Figures 1A – 1C) (said substrate can also correspond to the claimed adherend), the transfer layer comprising at least one functional layer (Figure 1A, #22 and 24; Paragraphs 0088 – 0100), such as antifouling agents (thereby corresponding to being an antifouling layer too) (paragraph 0100) wherein the function of said antifouling agent in antifouling layer can be unevenly distributed on the second release substrate side (Paragraphs 0094 and 0099, wherein particles and ribs is clearly an uneven distribution). Chevallier also discloses forming an moldable article (corresponds to claimed body) (Abstract, paragraph 0063, paragraph 0116), as is being claimed in instant Claim 4.
2. However, Chevallier et al. fail to disclose the functional layer that is an antifouling low refractive index layer, and the antifouling low refractive index layer comprises a binder resin and silica particles, wherein a ratio of Si element attributed to the silica particles is 10.0 atomic percent or more and 18.0 atomic percent or less, and a ratio of C element under the assumption that the ratio of Si element is defined to be 100 atomic percent is 180 atomic percent or more and 500 atomic percent or less, obtained by analysis of a surface region of the second release substrate side of the antifouling low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Also, Chevallier does not disclose the claimed roughness.
3. Ohashi teaches a functional layer that is an antifouling low refractive index layer (Abstract, wherein silica is white, resulting a low refractive index layer as shown by the use of anti-reflective), and the antifouling low refractive index layer comprises a binder resin and silica particles (Abstract), wherein a ratio of Si element attributed to the silica particles is 10.0 atomic percent or more and 18.0 atomic percent or less, and a ratio of C element under the assumption that the ratio of Si element is defined to be 100 atomic percent is 180 atomic percent or more and 500 atomic percent or less, obtained by analysis of a surface region of the second release substrate side of the antifouling low refractive index layer by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (Claim 1). Ohashi discloses that its invention results in excellent antireflection performance, sufficient mechanical strength, and abrasion resistant that has not been hitherto obtained (Page 3).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the antifouling low refractive index layer comprises a binder resin and silica particles in Chevallier et al. in order to form a film with the desired properties as taught by Ohashi.
5. Ohashi’ discloses an antireflection film for transfer which is excellent in antireflective performance and mechanical strength that comprises a low-refractive index layer comprising silica particles and a binder (Abstract) as well as an anti-fouling capability (paragraph 0039). Ohashi further discloses that it can have a roughness of (Ra) of 10 nm or less so that peeling during the transfer of the antifouling low refractive index layer can be facilitated thereby improving scratch resistance (paragraph 0010).
6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the roughness of the antifouling low refractive index layer, of Chevallier, by obtaining a roughness of less than 10 nm, as disclosed by Ohashi’. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain improved scratch resistance.
7. Regarding Claims 2, 5, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ suggests a ratio of a concentration (X2) of the functional component contained in the functional layer at the interface with the second release substrate to a concentration (X1) of the functional component contained in the functional layer in the surface on the side opposite to the second release substrate is 10 or more (Ohashi: Claim 1) for the purpose of forming a film with the desired properties (Ohashi: Abstract).
8. Regarding Claims 3, 6, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ suggests using both bead-like (non-hollow) and hollow silica particles (Ohashi’: paragraph 0056). Given that the amounts of nanoparticles per 100 parts of binder and nanoparticle sizes are the same, the resulting low refractive index layer would have the claimed ratio of Si element, C element, and when the thickness of the layer is trisected, the regions would inherently have the claimed atomic percentages.
9. Regarding Claim 7, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ suggests said corresponding substrate (“support”) can be made of a resin (Chevallier: paragraph 0018).
10. Regarding Claims 9, 10, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ suggests using its invention as substrates (corresponds to claimed front plates) for image display devices (Ohashi: Pages 2, 21, 23, 30), wherein said substrate can be molded as explained above.
11. Regarding Claim 11, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ suggests adhering the surface of said transfer sheet to an adherend and then peeling said substrate to obtain its transfer layer (Chevallier: Claims 1-25).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevallier USPA_20130340930_A1 in view of Ohashi WO_2004113966_A1 and Ohashi’ JP_2007114305_A1, as applied to Claims 1-7 and 9-11, and in view of Morozumi USPA_20180222236_A1.
12. Regarding Claim 8, Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’ does not suggest the claimed limitations.
13. Morozumi discloses a transfer film for an image display device (Title) having a glass substrate (paragraph 0442) and layers that are positioned adjacent to it that can be made of resins comprising a carboxyl group (Claim 10) and methoxy group (Examples). Morozumi discloses that its invention results in a good balance of optical density in image display devices (paragraph 0018).
14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the resin, of Chevallier in view of Ohashi and Ohashi’, by using the adherend and carboxyl/methoxy groups, of Morozumi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain a good balance of optical density in its image display devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights