DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18, 21, and 22 are pending. Claims 1-5, 21, and 22 are directed to the elected invention. Claims 6-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
It is not clear how claim 21 further limits independent claim 1. Specifically, claim 1, as amended, requires that the anti-reflective coating comprising a plurality of inorganic layers having differing refractive indices relative to other another. Since the term “plurality” means more than 1, it is not clear how claim 21, which appears to simply define a first and second inorganic layer, further limits claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US Pub. 2016/0363698) in view of WO2018/237242 and Liou et al. (Thin Solids Films).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Fan discloses an article comprising a glass or ceramic substrate ([0024], Fig. 1 #110); an anti-reflective coating (Fig. 1 #120) disposed over the substrate; and an ETC coating comprising fluorinated material disposed on the anti-reflective coating ([0074] , Fig. 1 #140). The anti-reflective coating can be a bi-layer or multi-layer coating [0030] and include a silsesquioxane or polysilazane [0032], which corresponds to the presently claimed intermediate layer.
With respect to the newly added limitation that the anti-reflective coating comprises a plurality of inorganic layers having differing refractive indices relative to one another, Fan does not disclose this, but does suggest that the anti-reflective coating can be a multi-layer coating [0030] and can be made from inorganic materials. WO ‘242 discloses a similar article comprising an easy-to-clean coating and an anti-reflective optical stack (claim 1, [0023]). WO ‘242 discloses that the optical stack includes sub-layers that may be formed from different materials [0023] that have different refractive indices [0041]. Suitable materials for the optical stack of WO ‘242 include inorganic layers [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the article of Fan, wherein the anti-reflective layer includes an intermediate silsesquioxane or polysilazane layer, as taught in Fan, and additional optical sub-layers made from inorganic layers, as taught by WO ‘242, motivated by the desire to obtain a laminate having enhanced optical characteristics, as disclosed in WO ‘242 [0039].
Fan does not disclose the elastic modulus of the intermediate coating being from about 9 GPa to about 40 GPa. However, as noted above, Fan uses the same materials as the present invention for the intermediate coating. Additionally, Fan discloses curing the coating at a temperature up to 500C. Liou discloses that elastic modulus properties of silsesquioxane coatings are affected by the curing temperature and a curing temperature of 500C would result in a GPa within the presently claimed range (Fig 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a curing temperature of up to 500C, as taught in Fan, in order to achieve a coating having elastic modulus properties within the claimed range, as taught in Liou.
Regarding claim 2, Fan discloses an article having an ETC coating having a water contact angle of 116 degrees (Example 7).
Regarding claim 3, Fan is silent as to the water contact angle of the ETC using the Cheesecloth Abrasion Test. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the ETC coating of Fan would inherently have the same water contact angle as the present invention since Fan uses the same materials and has the same water contact angle using the Steel Wool Abrasion Test. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses the claimed silsesquioxane [0106].
Regarding claim 22, WO ‘242 discloses that the inorganic layers of the optical stack have refractive indices ranging from about 1.3 to about 2.5 [0041].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US Pub. 2016/0363698) in view of WO2018/237242 and Liou et al. (Thin Solids Films), in further view of one of Dierdorf et al. (US Pub. 2007/0116968) or Yamane et al. (US Pub. 2020/0254482).
Modified Fan does not disclose the specific polysilazane coatings of claim 4. Dierdorf ([0014], [0017]) and Yamane ([0035], [0112]) both disclose that the use of perhydropolysilazane coatings are well known coatings for glass substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the perhydropolysilazane coatings of Dierdorf or Yamane as the intermediate coating in the article of modified Fan, motivated by the desire to obtain a laminated glass article having desired hydrophilic and anti-fingerprint properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added claim limitations that are addressed above in paragraphs 9 and 14.
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 Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at (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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights