DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim 10 has been cancelled, claims 1-5, 8 and 12-13 have been amended, thus currently claims 1-9 and 11-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haga et al. (US 20120008206 A1, hereinafter, “Haga”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Haga teaches an optical film (antiglare film 1, see figures 2 and 6-7) comprising:
a base film (base member 11, see fig 6);
a pattern layer (see curved pattern of antiglare layer 12, as seen in fig 6) including a curved portion (see curved portion of 12, better seen in fig 7) formed on the base film (11); and
a coating layer (low-refractive-index layer 14, see fig 6) disposed on the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12),
wherein the coating layer (14) further includes a plurality of particles (hollow fine particles 15, see fig 7) continuously arranged on a pattern surface (see curved pattern of 12) of the curved portion of the pattern layer (curved pattern); and
a filler (resin of 14, see ¶ 168) arranged along the curved portion (curved portion of 12) of the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12) and filling a space (see space between 15s, better seen in fig 7) existing between the plurality of particles (15),
wherein the plurality of particles (15s) are uniformly arranged (see uniform arrangement UA, annotate in fig 7 below) on a first portion (see first portion labeled FP in annotated figure below) of the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12), the first portion (FP) being convex (as seen in fig 6) in a first direction (upwards), and
on a second portion (see second portion labeled SP in annotated figure below) of the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12), the second portion (SP) being concave (as seen in fig 6) in a second direction (downwards) opposite to the first direction (upwards),
a filling ratio (evident from zoomed figure below, where uniformly arranged particles extend entirely within the layer 14, and thus the filling ration is closer to 100 %, or and certainly above 40%) defined by a cross-sectional area (see cross sectional area of 14, as seen in fig below) of the plurality of particles (15s) per a unit area (see sample of unit area UA in annotated in fig 7 below) of the pattern surface is 40% or more (evident from figure 7, as the particles clearly extend almost along the entire cross section of 14).
Annotated figures 6 and 7 of Haga has been reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
264
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Haga teaches wherein the plurality of particles (15) includes an empty space inside (air, see ¶173) the plurality of particles (15).
Regarding claim 9, Haga teaches wherein the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12) includes at least one of an irregular matte layer (as the shape is irregular to provide anti reflection, see ¶ 157), a pyramid pattern, a reversed pyramid pattern, or a prism pattern.
Regarding claim 11, Haga teaches wherein the coating layer 14 is extended with a uniform thickness (uniform thickness, see ¶ 167) along the pattern surface (upper surface of 12) of the pattern layer (curved surface of 12).
Regarding claim 12, Haga teaches wherein the curved portion (curved portion of 12) of the pattern layer (curved pattern of 12) is repeatedly extended with a first portion (see first portion labeled FP in annotated figure below) wherein the first portion (FP) is protruded in a first direction (upwards) and a second portion (see second portion labeled SP in annotated figure below), and wherein the second portion (SP) is depressed in a second direction (downwards) opposite to the first portion (FP).
Regarding claim 13, Haga teaches a backlight unit (liquid crystal display apparatus, see fig 2) including the optical film (1) of claim 1, comprising:
a light source (backlight 3, see fig 2); and
an optical sheet (liquid crystal panel 2, see fig 2),
wherein a light emitted from the light source (3) is incident to the optical sheet (2) and the optical film (1) is disposed the optical sheet (2).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (US 20120008206 A1, hereinafter, “Haga”) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20230258845 A1, hereinafter, “Suzuki”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Haga teaches the pattern layer (pattern of 12) and coating layer (14) that extends in a direction away (upwards) from the pattern layer (pattern of 12), as disclosed in claim 1 above, but
Haga does not explicitly teach
(claim 2) wherein the coating layer comprises a plurality of coating layers wherein the plurality of coating layers is stacked in a direction away from the pattern layer; and
(claim 3) wherein a refractive index of a coating layer exposed to air in the plurality of coating layers is lower than a refractive index of a coating layer unexposed to air in the plurality of coating layers arranged on the pattern layer; and
(claim 5) wherein the second coating layer further includes an empty space inside the plurality of particles.
Suzuki an optical film (antireflective member 100, see figure 1) having a coating layer (high refractive index layer 30 and low refractive index layer 40) on a pattern layer (hard coat 20) including a plurality of particles (hollow particles 42);
(claim 2) wherein the coating layer (30, 40) comprises a plurality of coating layers (30 and 40) wherein the plurality of coating layers (30, 40) is stacked in a direction away from the pattern layer (20); and
(claim 3) wherein a refractive index of a coating layer (40) exposed to air (as seen in fig 1) in the plurality of coating layers (30, 40) is lower (as 40 is disclosed as low refractive, see ¶ 42) than a refractive index (as 30 is disclosed as having a high refractive index, see ¶ 42) of a coating layer (30) unexposed to air (as 40 cover 30) in the plurality of coating layers (30, 40) arranged on the pattern layer (20); and
(claim 5) wherein the second coating layer (40) further includes an empty space (air in the particles, see ¶ 148) inside the plurality of particles (42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of coating layers as taught by Suzuki into the teachings of Haga in order to enhance the protection to the components covered by the optical film. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a scratch resistant film with improved the anti-reflection properties.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (US 20120008206 A1, hereinafter, “Haga”) in view of Furui et al. (US 20090268299 A1, hereinafter, “Furui”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Haga teaches wherein the coating layer (14) is arranged along the curved portion (curved part of 12) of the pattern layer (pattern layer); but
Haga does not explicitly teach:
(claim 4) wherein the plurality of coating layers comprise a first coating layer and a second coating layer, wherein the first coating layer is arranged along the curved portion of the pattern layer; and the second coating layer is disposed on the first coating layer; and
(claim 6) wherein a refractive index of the second coating layer is lower than a refractive index of the first coating layer.
Furui teaches an optical film (optical laminate, see figure 3) having a coating layer (low-refractive index layer 6 and surface modifying layer 9) on a pattern layer (substrate concavo-convex layer 8);
(claim 4) wherein the plurality of coating layers (6, 9) comprise a first coating layer (9) and a second coating layer (6), wherein the first coating layer (9) is arranged along the curved portion (see curved portion of 8) of the pattern layer (8); and the second coating layer (6) is disposed on the first coating layer (9); and
(claim 6) wherein a refractive index (since 6 is disclosed as low refractive, see ¶ 72) of the second coating layer (6) is lower than a refractive index (as 9 is disclosed as having a higher refractive index than 6, see ¶ 72) of the first coating layer (9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of coating layers as taught by Furui into the teachings of Haga in order to improve black reproducibility and feeling of glossy black. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to exhibit glare resistant function with outstanding glare prevention property and achieve high-visibility image display by satisfying predetermined conditions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (US 20120008206 A1, hereinafter, “Haga”) in view of Iwata et al. (US 8431219 B2, hereinafter, “Iwata”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 8, Haga teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of particles are irregularly stacked inside the coating layer.
Iwata teaches an optical film (composition 1, see figure 5) having a coating layer (resin of 1) and a plurality of particles (non-spherical silica 2 and organic particles 3);
wherein the plurality of particles (2, 3) are irregularly stacked (as seen in fig 5) inside the coating layer (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the shape of the particles as taught by Iwata into the teachings of Haga in order to facilitate increased agglomeration of the plurality of particles. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification so that the antireflection properties are enhance having the desired surface roughness on its surface, and therefore providing superior visibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Haga does not teach "wherein the plurality of particles are uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer, the first portion being convex in a first direction, and on a second portion of the pattern layer, the second portion being concave in a second direction opposite to the first direction."
Stating that: Haga shows in fig 6 that there are no showing of particles "uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer" and no clear showing of the first portion being "convex in a first direction." Moreover, Haga does not show the particles "uniformly arranged on a second portion of the pattern layer" and the second portion being "concave in a second direction." And, Claim 1 requires the particles be uniformly arranged not only on the first portion of the patter layer, in which the first portion is convex in one direction but also on the second portion of the patter layer, in which the second portion is concave in another direction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Haga teaches the particles (15) clearly aligned and uniformly arranged on the pattern of 12 and better seen in fig 7. It appears, the particles 15 (within the layer 14) have been confused with particles 13 (within layer 12). Certainly, particles 13 are not uniformly distributed, However, the office action has not used particles 13, the previous office action has matched particles 15 with the requirements of the claim.
As the term portion has not been explicitly defined in terms of any magnitude or position, the term has been broadly interpreted as any portion of 12. Note layer 12 has an irregular pattern of curves, this irregular curved creates at least one convex portion and at least one concave portion, as annotated in figure 6 above.
Additionally, note the layer 14, containing the particles 15, are positioned uniformly along the entire pattern of 12, this is better seen in fig 7.
And the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Suzuki does not teach “wherein the plurality of particles are uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer, the first portion being convex in a first direction, and on a second portion of the pattern layer, the second portion being concave in a second direction opposite to the first direction" nor "a plurality of coating layers wherein the plurality of coating layers is stacked in a direction away from the pattern layer."
Stating that claims 2, 3, and 5 require a multiple coating layers stacked on one another where each coating layer has "the plurality of particles" which are "uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer, the first portion being convex in a first direction, and on a second portion of the pattern layer, the second portion being concave in a second direction opposite to the first direction" as shown in Fig. 3 of the present application. Suzuki only teaches a single coating layer which is built upon a flat, smooth substrate and is"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Haga teaches the pattern layer having concave and convex portions and a coating layer with a plurality of particles uniformly arranged within the coating layer. In order to further clarify what is already show in fig 7, the current office action includes additional explanations in claim 2 above. Haga does not explicitly teaches the coating layer having multiple layers, and thus any reference incorporated and/or combined with only needs to teach the coating layer having multiple layers, Again, Haga’s coating layer is already on, stacked or positioned on the pattern layer.
Consequently, Suzuki does not need to teach the pattern layer or the particles uniformly arranged at all (as these were already anticipated by Haga). As, Suzuki is brought only to show a coating layer (analogous to Haga’s) comprising a plurality of coating layers is known in the art, and that the incorporation of teachings benefits Haga.
Additionally, the remarks state “each” of the layers in the plurality of coating layers have particles. This requirement is not recited in claim 2.
And the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Furui does not teach “multiple coating layers where a first coating layer teaches the feature "wherein the plurality of particles are uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer, the first portion being convex in a first direction, and on a second portion of the pattern layer, the second portion being concave in a second direction opposite to the first direction" and a second coating layer teaches the feature "wherein the plurality of particles are uniformly arranged on a first portion of the pattern layer, the first portion being convex in a first direction, and on a second portion of the pattern layer, the second portion being concave in a second direction opposite to the first direction."
Stating that: Furui only shows a surface modifying layer (9) which may be a single coating layer having the plurality of particles as required by claims 4 and 6 at most. However, a substrate concavo-convex layer (8) is not a coating layer required by claims 4 and 6 because it is not only a substrate but also the particles in the substrate are not uniformly arranged. A low-refractive index layer (6) is not a coating layer required by claims 4 and 6 because it does not have the plurality of particles in the coating layer. Thus, claims 4 and 6 are not obvious over Haga in view of Furui.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Similarly to Suzuki above, Furui does not need to teach the pattern layer or the particles uniformly arranged at all, as these were already anticipated by Haga. Additionally, Furui does not need to teach the any of the multiple layers being a coating. Furui is brought to teach differences of refractive indices between layers is known in the art, and this difference in refractive indices benefits Haga in view of Suzuki.
And the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended claim 8, Applicant argues that Iwata does not teach "wherein the plurality of particles (2) is formed irregularly formed (as seen in fig 5) inside the coating layer (1)."
Stating that: the combination of Haga and Iwata fails to teach the unique structural relationship of the present invention. Although Iwata teaches "irregularly formed" particles, this refers to the nonspherical geometry of the silica particles themselves used to prevent agglomeration (see Abstract of Iwata). The phrase, "irregularly stacked inside the coating layer," refers to the spatial arrangement of particles inside the coating layer (e.g., overlapping first, second, and third particles) as shown in FIG. 4 and a third paragraph on page 18 of the specification of the present application. Iwata does not teach or suggest stacking a plurality of particles in this specific vertical arrangement away from a curved pattern layer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although claim 8 has been amended and the scope of the claim has changed. It is noted, Iwata discloses more than one type of particle, as seen in figure 1, there are irregularly shaped particles and spherical particles, and these particles are irregularly staked.
And the applicant’s arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency from claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights