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 § 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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2019/0194066 A1 (“Omote”).
Considering claims 1, 2, and 6, in various embodiments, Omote discloses a coated glass article, the coated glass article comprising a glass substrate having a peripheral chamfer with oblique surfaces extending from both major surfaces of the glass substrate, wherein all surfaces of the glass substrate is coated with siloxane material 6. (Omote ¶¶ 0019, 0022-0024; and Fig. 9L, annotated infra). It is noted that thickness requirement at the peripheral section is phrased using the indefinite article “a”, and as clearly shown in annotated Fig. 9L below, at a section of the chamfered region of the coated glass, total thickness of this section is less than a total thickness of a full-thickness region of the coated glass. Omote anticipates claims 1, 2, and 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2021/0147286A1 (“Goo”).
Considering claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, Goo discloses a thin glass substrate subjected to ion exchange to produce a conformal surface compressive stress layer, wherein the thin glass substrate has a peripheral chamfer with oblique surfaces extending from both major surfaces of the glass substrate. (Goo ¶¶ 0129 and Fig. 6E, reproduced infra). It is noted that thickness requirement at the peripheral section is phrased using the indefinite article “a”, and as clearly shown in Fig. 6E below, at a section of the chamfered region of the coated glass, total thickness of this section (core portion of glass not under compression and compressive stress layers) is less than a total thickness of a full-thickness region of the ion exchanged glass. Goo anticipates claims 1, 5, and 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
616
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0097044 A1 (“Kim”).
Considering claims 1, 2, and 6, Kim discloses coated transparent support comprising a transparent support substrate 102 encapsulated by a polymeric hard coat 104, wherein the hard coat has two edge portions and two main surface portions, each of which respectively covering edge portions and main surfaces of the transparent support substrate. (Kim ¶¶ 0026-0029; and Fig. 8, annotated infra). As shown in Fig. 8 of the reference, the thickness of the transparent support substrate is tapered at its edge portions. (Id. ¶ 0037). Kim expressly discloses that the transparent substrate is made of glass, thereby disclosing usage of glass with sufficient specificity. (Id. ¶ 0026). Kim is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (glass substrates for displays).
It is noted that thickness requirement at the peripheral section is phrased using the indefinite article “a”, and as clearly shown in annotated Fig. 8 below, at a section of the tapered region of the coated glass, total thickness of this section (glass and coating) is less than a total thickness of a full-thickness region of the coated glass.
PNG
media_image3.png
222
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goo, as applied to claim 1 above.
Considering claim 5, Goo discloses the thickness of its glass to be 15 to 100 microns. (Goo ¶ 0072). This range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claim 1 above.
Considering claims 3 and 5, Kim is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (glass substrates for displays). Kim discloses that the transparent support substrate has thickness of 25 to 125 µm, and that the hard coat layer has thickness of 1 to 200 µm. (Kim ¶¶ 0026 and 0027). The former overlaps the range of claim 5, and the latter overlaps the range of claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 4, 7, and 18 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0097044 A1 (“Kim”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0107251 A1 (“Chen”).
Considering claims 4 and 7, although Kim discloses usage of polymeric materials for forming the hard coat, Kim does not expressly disclose usage of polyimide.
However, usage of polyimide in a glass polymer laminates used for display purposes is taught in Chen. (Chen ¶¶ 0270-0284; and Fig. 6). In particular, the glass of Chen has thickness of 25 to 500 µm and the polymeric coating 411 of Chen has thickness of 50 to 200 µm. (Id. ¶¶ 0222 and 0266). As such, the thicknesses taught in the references are substantially similar that person of ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success that teachings from Chen may be applied to the coated glass of Kim. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used polyimide as the hard coat material in Kim, because Chen teaches that polyimide, when used to form a glass polymer composite, leads to desirable properties such as increased mechanical stability. (Id. ¶ 0009). Kim in view of Chen renders obvious claims 4 and 7.
Considering claim 18, Fig. 6 of Chen shows an OCA interposed between layer 411 of polyimide and the chamfered glass portions 221 and 231. (Id. ¶ 0284).
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of known subjects matters in the art (e.g. from either Omote or Goo cited above).
Claims 4, 7, and 18 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Kim and subject matters known in the art, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen.
Considering claims 1-7 and 18, the various pertinent portions of Kim and Chen are as discussed above and not reiterated here. Chen differs from the configuration shown in the figures of the instant application, as it does not have distinct oblique sections extending from opposing major surfaces. However, Chen discloses that the support substrate 102 may be tapered. (Chen ¶¶ 0037 and 0038). As is known in the art of cover glasses used for displays, forms of such tapering also include the morphologies shown in Omote and Goo. (See Omote Fig. 9 and Goo Fig. 6E). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the tapering morphology shown in either Omote or Goo for the tapering of the glass support substrate in Kim, as both morphologies are known in the art of display cover glasses. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-7 and 18 are thus rendered obvious by Kim, Chen, and subject matter known in the art.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments to claim 1, the previously instated rejection over Bookbinder has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejections relying on Kim, as Kim at least read on claim 6, which means it must read on claim 1. Applicant’s position stems from overcounting coating thickness in the tapered region of Kim, while undercounting coating thickness in the flat region. However, as this is not a like-to-like comparison, this argument is flawed and not persuasive.
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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 on (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781