DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Specification
The amendment filed 06/18/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Applicants have amended paragraph 0035 and paragraph 0094 of the present specification to recite that SMP-250A has double bond equivalent of 240-260 g/mol and molecular weight (Mw) of 20,000-30,000. As support for this amendment, applicant points to an attached brochure (which it is noted was not cited on an IDS). However, while the brochure provides support to recite that “SMP-250AP” has such double bond equivalent and molecular weight, the is no support to recite that “SMP-250A” has such properties. Similarly, applicants have amended paragraph 35 of the present specification to recite that SMP-550A has double bond equivalent of 350-370 g/mol and molecular weight (Mw) of 20,000-30,000. As support for this amendment, applicant points to the attached brochure. However, while the brochure provides support to recite that “SMP-360A” has such double bond equivalent and molecular weight, the is no support to recite that “SMP-550A” has such properties.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 10 recites “the molecular weight Mw is”, which should be “the weight average molecular weight of the (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 11 recites “the Rzjis is 0.80 to 1.5”, which should be “the ten point average roughness (Rzjis) measured when the reference length of the anti-glare layer is set to 0.8 mm is 0.80 to 1.5 mm.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 10 recites “the molecular weight Mw is”, which should be “the weight average molecular weight of the (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13, line 11 recites “the Rzjis is 0.80 to 1.5”, which should be “the ten point average roughness (Rzjis) measured when the reference length of the anti-glare layer is set to 0.8 mm is 0.80 to 1.5 mm.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 2018/0364400 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Kamo et al. (US 2022/0396490 A1 cited in IDS) and Matsui et al. (TW201710420A cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Michigan Metrology (2026, cited in IDS) and Fushimi (US 2016/0302276 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Matsui et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-4, Eguchi et al. disclose an optical sheet excellent in anti-glare property, wherein the optical sheet has an uneven surface (see Abstract). The optical sheet has an uneven layer (antiglare layer) on a transparent substrate (see page 17, claim 3). The uneven layer provides hardness (see paragraph 0129). That is, the uneven layer is a hard coat layer.
The uneven surface (surface of antiglare layer) has a ten-point average roughness Rz0.8 according to JISB0601 measured at a reference length of 0.8 mm of 0.300 to 0.650 microns (see Abstract). Rz0.8 reads on Rzjis as presently claimed. It is well known as evidenced by Michigan Metrology that Rz roughness measured using JISB0601 is Rzjis (see page 2, second paragraph). The optical sheet (anti-glare laminate) has a haze of 0.5 to 10% (see paragraph 0146). Accordingly, H/Rz0.8 is 1.7 to 15.4 (1.7 = 0.5/0.300 and 15.4 = 10/0.650), which overlaps with the presently claimed formula (1). Eguchi et al. disclose that the uneven layer (anti-glare layer) comprises a resin component which is a cured product of a resin composition cured by an ionized radiation, i.e. active-energy ray-curable resin (see paragraphs 0083, 0084, 0088). The uneven layer (anti-glare layer) comprises particles such as silica particles (see paragraph 0117, 0123). As evidenced by Fushimi, silica particles are light-diffusing fine particles (see paragraph 0061). Further, as evidenced by the present specification, light-diffusing fine particles include silica particles (paragraph 0018 of the present specification).
Further, the resin composition comprises a curable compound including (meth)acrylate monomer having 1 to 4 functionalities (see paragraph 0096) which includes, when the functionality is greater than 1, a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer. The polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer (component A) is present in amount of 10 to 65 mass% relative to a total solid component of the resin composition (see paragraph 0101). The resin composition also comprises large particles such as hollow silica particles (component D) having a particle diameter of 1 to 8 microns in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% relative to a total solid component of uneven layer (see paragraphs 0112, 0115, 0117 and 0119). A photopolymerization initiator (component C) can be present in the resin composition (see paragraph 0108).
Eguchi et al. do not disclose the silica particles having an oil absorption amount as presently claimed. Eguchi et al. do not disclose a (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B).
Kamo et al. disclose hollow silica particles having an oil absorption amount of 15 to 1300 mL/100 g in order to improve adhesion, retain resin strength and reduce viscosity (see paragraphs 0071, 0072).
In light of motivation for using silica particles having an oil absorption amount of 15 to 1300 mL/100 g disclosed by Kamo et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica particles having an oil absorption amount of 15 to 1300 mL/100 g in Eguchi et al. in order to improve adhesion, retain resin strength and reduce viscosity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. do not disclose a (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B).
Matsui et al. disclose a hard coating layer made of active energy-ray curable resin comprising 10 to 40 mass% of a reactive polymer having a double bond equivalent of 200 to 600 g/mol and a weight average molecular weight of 8000 to 15000 (see paragraph 0036). The incorporation of the reactive polymer suppresses curling (see paragraph 0036). The reactive polymer is a (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (see paragraph 0037).
In light of motivation for using 10 to 40 mass% of (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer having a double bond equivalent of 200 to 600 g/mol and a weight average molecular weight of 8000 to 15000 disclosed by Matsui et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 10 to 40 mass% of (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer having a double bond equivalent of 200 to 600 g/mol and a weight average molecular weight of 8000 to 15000 of Matsui et al. in the uneven layer (anti-glare layer) of Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. in order to suppress curling of uneven layer (anti-glare layer), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. disclose the antiglare layer comprising 10 to 65 mass% of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate-based monomer (A) and 10 to 40 mass% of the (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) in the resin composition. Based on these amounts, the amount of polyfunctional (meth)acrylate-based monomer (A) is 20 to 87 wt% (20 = 10/50 x 100 and 87 = 65/75 x 100) when a total of the (A) and the (B) is 100 mass% and the amount of (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) is 13 to 80 wt.% (13 = 10/75 x 100 and 80 = 40/50 x 100) when a total of the (A) and the (B) is 100 mass%.
Regarding claim 7, Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. disclose the antiglare layer comprising 0.5 to 10 mass% of silica particles (D), 10 to 65 mass% of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate-based monomer (A) and 10 to 40 mass% of the (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) in the resin composition. Based on these amounts, the amount of silica particles (D) is 1 to 13 wt% (1 = 0.5/50 x 100 and 13 = 10/75 x 100) when a total of the (A) and the (B) is 100 mass%.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 2018/0364400 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Kamo et al. (US 2022/0396490 A1 cited in IDS) and Matsui et al. (TW201710420A cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Michigan Metrology (2026, cited in IDS) and Fushimi (US 2016/0302276 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ozawa et al. (WO 2020/203359 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Ozawa et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. disclose the anti-glare laminate as set forth above. Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. do not disclose the substrate layer as presently claimed.
Ozawa et al. disclose a resin laminate comprising a high-hardness layer made of acrylic resin on both sides of a base layer made of aromatic polycarbonate resin (see paragraphs 0028, 0030, 0034, 0037, 0052, 0053). The high-hardness layer provides surface hardness and impact resistance (see paragraph 0108). The base layer provides impact resistance (see paragraph 0035). The high-hardness layer on both sides of the base layer improves dimensional stability (see paragraph 0030). Further, a hard coat layer is provided on the resin laminate (see paragraph 0112).
In light of motivation for using resin laminate disclosed by Ozawa et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resin laminate of Ozawa et al. as the substrate in Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. in order to provide surface hardness, impact resistance and dimensional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi et al. (US 2018/0364400 A1 cited in IDS) in view of Kamo et al. (US 2022/0396490 A1 cited in IDS) and Matsui et al. (TW201710420A cited in IDS), taken in view of evidence by Michigan Metrology (2026, cited in IDS) and Fushimi (US 2016/0302276 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Morinaga et al. (US 2007/0022798 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. disclose the anti-glare laminate as set forth above. Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. do not disclose an optical interference layer on the anti-glare layer.
Morinaga et al. disclose an optical film comprising an anti-reflection layer comprising a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer, wherein the anti-reflection layer is provided on a hard coat layer (see Abstract and paragraphs 0102, 0103, 0243). This laminate of high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer is an optical interference layer (see paragraph 0103). This is similar to the optical interference layer utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0067 of present specification).
In light of motivation for using an anti-reflection layer comprising high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer disclosed by Morinaga et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an anti-reflection layer comprising high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer on the uneven layer (antiglare layer or hard coat layer) of Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. in order to provide anti-reflection properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. disclose the anti-glare laminate (optical sheet) as set forth above. Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. do not disclose an adhesive layer on a surface of the substrate layer opposite to the anti-glare layer.
Morinaga et al. disclose an optical film comprising an anti-reflection layer on a hard coat layer (see paragraph 0243). The optical film is used as a polarizing plate protective film, wherein the polarizing plate protective film is adhered to a polarizing plate using adhesive (adhesive layer) and the polarizing plate is used to built display apparatus (see paragraphs 0371, 0375, 0376).
Therefore, as taught by Morinaga et al., it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adhesive layer on a surface of the substrate layer opposite to the anti-glare layer (uneven layer) in order to use the optical sheet (anti-glare laminate) of Eguchi et al. in view of Kamo et al. and Matsui et al. as a polarizing protective film that can be attached to a polarizing plate for building display apparatus, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzuhara et al. (WO 2020/145370 A1) in view of Fukuyama et al. (JP2010237585A) and Tsunekawa et al. (JP2012022189A), taken in view of evidence by Michigan Metrology (2026, cited in IDS) and Fushimi (US 2016/0302276 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that when utilizing Kuzuhara et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2022/0373720 A1 (cited in IDS) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Kuzuhara et al. are found in US ‘720. It is noted that the disclosures of Fukuyama et al. and Tsunekawa et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kuzuhara et al. disclose an antiglare film 100 (anti-glare laminate) comprising disclose a transparent substrate 10 (substrate) and a resin layer 20 (anti-glare layer), wherein a first main surface A1 of the antiglare film has Rz0.8 of 0.8 microns or less (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 0092, 0372-0376). Rz0.8 is ten-point roughness at a cut-off value of 0.8 mm of JIS B0601:1994 (see paragraph 0292). Rz0.8 reads on Rzjis as presently claimed. It is well known as evidenced by Michigan Metrology that Rz roughness measured using JISB0601 is Rzjis (see page 2, second paragraph). The anti-glare film has a haze of 0.3 to 10% (see paragraph 0226). Accordingly, H/Rz0.8 is 0.375 to 12.8 (0.375 = 0.3/0.8 and 12.5 = 10/0.8), which overlaps with the presently claimed formula (1).
Kuzuhara et al. disclose that the resin layer includes a resin component, particles and a photopolymerization initiator (see paragraphs 0146, 0188). The particles include large particles such as silica particles having particle size of 0.3 to 5.0 microns present in amount of 2 to 25 wt% of the total solid content forming the resin layer (see paragraphs 0153, 0162 and 0164). As evidenced by Fushimi, silica particles are light-diffusing fine particles (see paragraph 0061). Further, as evidenced by the present specification, light-diffusing fine particles include silica particles (paragraph 0018 of the present specification). The resin component includes a cured product of an ionizing radiation-curable resin composition comprising polyfunctional (meth)acrylate-based compounds (see paragraphs 0175, 0178).
Kuzuhara et al. do not disclose the silica particles having an oil absorption amount as presently claimed. Kuzuhara et al. do not disclose antiglare layer comprising a polyfunctional (meth)acryloyl group containing monomer (A) and a (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) as presently claimed.
Fukuyama et al. disclose an anti-glare hard coat film comprising silica particles having an average particle size smaller than 3.5 microns and an oil absorption amount of less than 150 ml/100g (see Abstract and paragraph 0014). These particles reduce image glare and blurring while generating a certain degree of haze by making them easily absorbed into the coating film (see paragraph 0014).
In light of motivation for using silica particles having an average particle size smaller than 3.5 microns and an oil absorption amount of less than 150 ml/100g disclosed by Fukuyama et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica particles having an average particle size smaller than 3.5 microns and an oil absorption amount of less than 150 ml/100g of Fukuyama et al. as the silica particles in order to reduce image glare and blurring while generating a certain degree of haze by making them easily absorbed into the resin layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kuzuhara et al. in view of Fukuyama et al. do not disclose antiglare layer comprising a polyfunctional (meth)acryloyl group containing monomer (A) and a (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) as presently claimed.
Tsunekawa et al. disclose an optical laminate comprising a substrate and a hard coat layer (see Abstract). The hard coat layer composition contains a (meth)acrylic polymer (i.e. claimed B) and a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer (i.e. claimed A), wherein a solid content ratio of the (meth)acrylic polymer to the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer is 1:9 to 3:7 (see Abstract and paragraphs 0014, 0022). Therefore, a ratio of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer is 70 to 90 wt% and a ratio of the (meth)acrylic polymer is 30 to 10 wt%. The solid content ratio prevents curling and provides scratch resistance and adhesion to the substrate (see paragraph 0023). The (meth)acrylic polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 30,000 and an acrylic double bond equivalent of 200 to 300 (see Abstract). The aforementioned weight average molecular weight and acrylic double bond equivalent provides hardness, handleability and scratch resistance (see paragraphs 0015, 0016).
In light of motivation for using a hard coat layer composition comprising 70 to 90 wt% of polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and 30 to 10 wt% of (meth)acrylic polymer, wherein the (meth)acrylic polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 30,000 and an acrylic double bond equivalent of 200 to 300 disclosed by Tsunekawa et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 70 to 90 wt% of polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer and 30 to 10 wt% of (meth)acrylic polymer, wherein the (meth)acrylic polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 30,000 and an acrylic double bond equivalent of 200 to 300 in the resin layer of Kuzuhara et al. in view of Fukuyama et al. in order to provide scratch resistance, hardness, handleability and adhesion to a substrate as well as prevent curling, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kuzuhara et al. in view of Fukuyama et al. and Tsunekawa et al. disclose the antiglare layer comprising 2 to 25 mass% of silica particles (D), 70 to 90 mass% of the polyfunctional (meth)acrylate-based monomer (A) and 30 to 10 mass% of the (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer (B) in the resin composition. Based on these amounts, the amount of silica particles (D) is 2 to 20 wt% (2 = 2/102 X 100 and 20 = 25/125 X 100) when a total of the (A) and the (B) is 100 mass%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicants argue that amended claim 1 exhibits unexpected results sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, as seen when comparing the results in Tables 1 and 2 of the specification, Applicant submits that the compositions of claim 1 exhibit lower sparkle than oil absorption amounts outside this range (e.g., Table 2, Comparative Examples 1-4), a result that is not disclosed or suggested by the cited documents, and that would not have been expected from the cited documents.
However, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims given that (i) the examples recite a specific substrate having specific a thickness (see paragraph 0088 of present specification), while the present claim recite any substrate having any thickness (ii) the examples recite a specific anti-glare layer having a specific thickness comprising specific polyfunctional (meth)acryloyl group-containing monomer in a specific amount, a specific (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer in a specific amount, a specific photopolymerization initiator in a specific amount, a specific silica particle including specific oil absorption in a specific amount in a specific amount and a specific ratio of (A) to (B) (see paragraph 0088 and Table 1 of present specification), while the present claim has a broad recitation of anti-glare layer having any thickness comprising any polyfunctional (meth)acryloyl group-containing monomer in any amounts, broad recitation of (meth)acryloyl group-containing polymer in any amounts, any photopolymerization initiator in any amounts, broad recitation of silica particle in any amounts and a broad ratio of (A) to (B). There is no data at the upper and lower end of the claimed oil absorption. Further, there are no comparative examples that have an oil absorption lower than the lower end of the claimed oil absorption range (i.e. lower than 30 mL/100 g) to establish criticality of the lower end of the claimed range.
In light of amendments, previous claim objections are withdrawn. However, in light of amendments, new claim objections are set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights