DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 is amended to recite “an outer peripheral portion of the resin layer projects beyond the side face of the glass layer”. There is no support found in the present specification for such amendment.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
It is not clear how the resin layer projects “beyond” the side face of the glass layer since fusion layer is continuously exposed on a side face of the glass layer.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amend claim 3, depends on claim 1, recites “an outer peripheral portion of the resin layer projects beyond the side face of the glass layer” while claim 1 recites fusion layer is formed in an outer peripheral portion of the glass layer on a glass layer side that faces the adhesive layer and wherein the fusion layer is continuously exposed on a bottom face and a side face of the glass layer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciou et al. (US 2016/0288249).
Regarding claim 1, Ciou discloses a multilayer structure comprises a resin layer (16, fig 2A, 0033), a glass layer (12, fig 2A, 0026, 0033) stacked via adhesive layer (14, fig 2A, 0033) on the resin layer, wherein a thickness of the glass layer is 1 micron to 1 mm (0029), wherein the fusion layer is continuously exposed on a bottom face of the glass layer facing the adhesive layer and on a side face of the glass layer (figs. 3-5 and 11, paragraphs 0020)
It is noted that Ciou does not specifically discloses the thickness of the fusion layer. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific thickness of the fusion layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the edge modification is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the thickness and amount of laser, the precise thickness of the fusion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of fusion layer in the multilayer structure to obtain the desired edge modification (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Ciou discloses the multilayered structure of claim 1, wherein the outer peripheral portion of the glass layer projects from a side face of the resin layer (fig. 3) and an amount of projection of the outer peripheral portion of the glass layer from the side of the resin layer is from 1 microns to 2 mm (0005, 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Ciou discloses the multilayered structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose oblique face in resin layer that forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with a face of the resin layer facing adhesive layer. However, as the specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been an obvious to a one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shape of the resin layer of Ciou based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said multilayer. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Ciou discloses the multilayered structure of claim 1, wherein the resin layer includes a plurality of layers (fig 13, 0045).
Regarding claim 7, Ciou discloses the multilayered structure of claim 6 but does not specifically disclose a polarizer. However, Ciou does disclose to use multilayer in display or touch panels (0003) and it is known to have polarizer in display and touch panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ciou does not disclose that the fusion layer is continuously exposed on a bottom face and a side face of the glass layer. However, note that Ciou does disclose the amended claim 1 as explained above.
Applicant argues that figs 3-5 in Ciou merely illustrate a plan view of the multilayer structure including an offset region 127 where only the brittle layer exists. However, applicant’s attention is drawn to paragraph 0020 of Ciou which discloses edge modification from polymeric side.
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787