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.
The certified copies are filed in parent application no. 18/686,673.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/15/2025, 2/26/2025, 7/23/2026, and 8/20/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 January 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,121 to Tsujimoto et al. (hereafter Tsujimoto). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Tsujimoto claims an optical film having a first surface, and a second surface which is a surface opposite to the first surface (claim 1, lines 1-2), wherein the optical film comprises an anti-reflection layer and an anti-glare layer in this order from the first surface to the second surface (claim 1, lines 3-5), the first surface has a profile of depressions and projections (claim 1, lines 6-7), the first surface has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 0.05 m or more specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 1, lines 8-9), and the first surface satisfies the relation represented by the following Expression 1:Sw x Vmp s; 2.00 (Expression 1) wherein "Sw" represents a tilt angle (degrees) of 30 μI pure water droplet flowing down on the first surface; and "Vmp" represents a value of a peak material volume (ml/m2) of the first surface specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 1, lines 13-20).
Regarding claim 2, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the first surface has a Vmp of 0.005 ml/m2 or more and 0.100 ml/m2 or less (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the first surface has a dale void volume Vvv of 0.005 ml/m2 or more and 0.100 ml/m2 or less, the dale void volume Vvv being specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 and being calculated where an areal material ratio that separates a core portion and a reduced dale is 80% (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 3.
Tsujimoto also claims that the first surface has a ratio of the Vvv to a Vvc (Vvv/Vvc) of 0.10 or less, the Vvc being a core void volume specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the first surface has a minimum autocorrelation length Sal of 4.0 pm or more and 12.0 pm or less specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 1, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 6, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the optical film comprises the anti-reflection layer, the anti-glare layer, and a substrate in this order from the first surface to the second surface (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the anti-glare layer contains a binder resin and particles (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the optical film has elemental ratios obtained by analysis of a surface region on the first surface side by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and satisfying the relations represented by the following Expressions 2 to 4:3.5 F/inorganic Si 10.0 (Expression 2) 0.08 organic Si/inorganic Si 1.00 (Expression 3) 5.0 F/organic Si 50.0 (Expression 4) wherein "F" represents a ratio of a fluorine element, "inorganic Si" represents a ratio of a silicon element attributed to an inorganic silicon compound, and "organic Si" represents a ratio of a silicon element attributed to an organic silicon compound (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 8.
Tsujimoto also claims that a proportion of the inorganic Si relative to the total elements is 2 atomic percent or more and 20 atomic percent or less for the elemental ratios obtained by analysis by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that the optical film has a total luminous reflectance Rsci of 3.0% or less measured by the following method: bonding a black plate to the second surface of the optical film with a transparent adhesive to prepare a sample; and measuring the total luminous reflectance (Rsci) of the optical film side of the sample as a light incident surface (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims having a haze specified in JIS K7136:2000 of 20% or more and 75% or less (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims that a polarization plate comprising a polarizer, a first transparent protective plate disposed on one side of the polarizer, and a second transparent protective plate disposed on the other side of the polarizer, wherein at least one of the first transparent protective plate and the second transparent protective plate is the optical film according to claim 1, and the second surface of the optical film is disposed facing the polarizer (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims a surface plate for an image display device, comprising a protective film bonded onto a resin plate or a glass plate, wherein the protective film is the optical film according to claim 1, and the second surface of the optical film is disposed facing the resin plate or the glass plate (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims an image display panel comprising a display element, and an optical film disposed on a light-emitting surface side of the display element, wherein, as the optical film, the optical film according to claim 1 is included (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 14.
Tsujimoto also claims an image display device comprising the image display panel according to claim 14 (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, Tsujimoto claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Tsujimoto also claims a method of producing the optical film according to claim 1, the method comprising: a first step of forming an anti-glare layer on a substrate; and a second step of forming an anti-reflection layer on the anti-glare layer (claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, Tsujimoto claims a method of selecting an optical film (claim 17, line 1), the method comprising selecting an optical film satisfying the following selection conditions (claim 17, lines 1-3): wherein the optical film has a first surface, and a second surface which is a surface opposite to the first surface (claim 17, lines 4-5), the optical film comprises an anti-reflection layer and an anti-glare layer in this order from the first surface to the second surface (claim 17, lines 6-8), the first surface has a profile of depressions and projections (claim 17, lines 9-10), the first surface has an arithmetic mean height Sa of 0.05 m or more specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 17, lines 11-12), and the first surface satisfies the relation represented by the following Expression 1:Sw x Vmp 2.00 (Expression 1) wherein "Sw" represents a tilt angle (degrees) of 30μI pure water droplet flowing down on the first surface; and "Vmp" represents a value of a peak material volume (ml/m2) of the first surface specified in ISO 25178-2:2012 (claim 17, lines 16-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights