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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 02/09/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 12-18 and 21-26 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon that the application as filed does not specifically disclose a hard coating agent and anti-static which can be used to form a functional layer having refractive index lower than the refractive index of a functional layer including a fluorine-containing silane compound. Claims 2-3, 12-16, 18, 21-22 and 24-26 are also rejected for depending from claims 1, 17 and 23.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 23 are rejected as being vague and indefinite when it recites "a first functional layer ..including a hard coating agent and an anti-static agent”; because the definition of hard coating agent is not clear, The “hard coating agent” is not a general term known in the art, it could be any components being used to form a hard coat layer, such as organic monomers to form a polymer layer by polymerization, inorganic compounds to form an inorganic coating layer by vapor deposition, organic or inorganic particle, or crosslinking agent to form a polymeric network. The term “hard coating agent” is not defined by the claim and the present specification as originally filed, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-3, 12-16, 18, 21-22 and 24-26 are also rejected for depending from claims 1 , 17 and 23, thus inclusion of indefinite features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 12-18 and 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 rejections as set forth above. The present claims are allowable over the prior art of record, and the closest cited prior arts are Hayaman et al (US 5,550,429, ‘429 hereafter) and Park et al (US 2020/0257338, ‘338 hereafter). ‘429 discloses a display device naturally comprising a display module, a color filter layer disposed on the display module and a glass substrate disposed on the color filter (Fig. 1, item 1), and a laminate including three laminated optical layers and glass substrate from display device reading upon a window panel disposed to the color filter layer (Fig. 1, layers 1-4, C5/L1 to C6/L25), which has a reflectance of about 1.5% to about 3.00% ( C5/L45-C5/L54), wherein the optical layers incudes a first functional layer being a hardcoat layer including a hard coating agent and an anti-static agent (C6/L30-C6/L36, C7/L40-57, conductive SnO2 or In203 functions both hard coating agent and antistatic agent) and a second functional layer disposed on the first functional layer which has refractive index being 1.45 and thickness being 97 nm (C6/L38-C6/L43), wherein the second functional layer includes a fluorine-containing silane compound (C6/LL43-C6/L45). ‘338 discloses a display device that comprises a window panel and color filter, wherein the window panel includes a base layer, a functional layer disposed on the base layer which contains a hard coating agent and an anti-static agent, and second functional layer being an anti-fouling layer containing fluorine-containing silane compound (Fig, 6, [0006]-[0020], [0076]-[0102]). However, the references do not teach or fairly suggest an optical layer as recited in the present claims 1, 17 and 23, comprising a first functional layer, which is disposed on a base layer or color filter layer, including a hard coating agent and an anti-static agent; and a second functional layer, which is disposed on the first functional layer, including a fluorine-containing silane compound; and a refractive-index of the second functional laver is greater than a refractive-index of the first functional layer (note: hardcoat layer generally has refractive index larger than anti-fouling layer formed from fluorine-containing compositions, which is well-known in the art).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that according to MPEP 2173.02, "A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification”; however, the present specification as originally filed does not provide a definition of the hard coating agent as claimed, especially a hard coating agent which is capable of forming a functional layer having refractive index lower than that of a functional layer having fluorine-containing compound; the hard coating agent including an acrylic resin as mentioned in paragraph [0102] is used to form an impact absorbing layer instead of the first functional layer as recited in the present claims 1, 17 and 23. It is also noted that the hard coating agent being an acrylic resin as in paragraph [0102] cannot form a layer having refractive index lower than that a functional layer formed from fluorine-containing silane compound.
Applicant also argues that the “hard coating agent” is well-known term in the art as in prior art; however, the examiner’s position is that the “hard coating agent” is a general term which may include any organic monomers, polymer resins, inorganic compound or particles that can be used to form a coating layer; thus the boundary of the claim is not clearly defined. It is also noted that the prior art (Park et al US2020/0257338) lists some of the hard coating agents including acrylate-base compound, siloxane compound or silsesquioxane compound, but none of these compounds is capable of forming a functional layer having refractive index lower than that of the functional layer including fluorine-containing silane compound as claimed.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims stand properly rejected.
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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782