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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on Jan. 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wherein the coated article further comprising.” It appears the claim should recite “wherein the coated article further comprises.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 7, 8, and 10 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the fingerprint resistant layer” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fingerprint resistant layer” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the compositional gradient” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the compositional gradient layer.”
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, 5, 6, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al. (US 2012/0212890 A1) (“Hoshino”), in view of Adib et al. (US 2014/0334006 A1) (“Adib”).
With respect to claim 1, Hoshino discloses an article (abstr.) comprising a non-planar glass-ceramic substrate – element 110B of the housing is non-planar (0038, 0040, Fig. 2). Hoshino is silent with respect to the substrate being chemically strengthened. Adib discloses an article including a substrate which may be a glass-ceramic substrate, the substrate being a part of a mobile device (0003, 0058), wherein the substrate is chemically strengthened (0064, 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a chemically strengthened glass-ceramic substrate in the article of Hoshino as it is known in the art of electronic device housings to chemically strengthen the material of an electronic device enclosure.
Regarding an optical coating on the chemically strengthened glass-ceramic substrate, the optical coating comprising a scratch-resistance layer and a compositional gradient layer, Adib discloses an optical coating on the substrate, the optical coating comprising a scratch-resistant layer – element 140, and a compositional gradient layer – element 130 – the refractive index gradient is formed by a compositional gradient layer (0083, 0088, 0089, 0090, Figs. 5 and 6), wherein the compositional gradient layer – element 130 - extends from the scratch-resistant layer – element 140 - to the chemically strengthened glass-ceramic substrate – element 110 (0058, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form on the substrate of Hoshino an optical coating as disclosed in Adib to provide the substrate of Hoshino with a scratch-resistant layer and a compositional gradient layer to modify optical properties such as reflectance and absorption, transmittance and color shift when the article is viewed at various viewing angles (Adib, 0083), thus forming the article of Hoshino as a coated article.
Regarding claim 2, Hoshino and Adib teach the coated article of claim 1. Hoshino discloses the glass-ceramic substrate having a major surface comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein a first direction that is normal to the first portion of the major surface is not equal to a second direction that is normal to the second portion of the major surface, and the angle between the first direction and the second direction is within the range recited in the claim – element 110B (Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses the optical film has a hardness of from about 8 GPa to about 50 GPa at an indentation depth of at least about 100 nm as measured on the major surface by a Berkovich hardness test (0013). The range of hardness overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Adib discloses hardness overlapping the recited range, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the coated article of Hoshino and Adib the article exhibits at the first portion and the second portion of the major surface the hardness as disclosed in Adib.
With respect to claim 6, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses a chemically strengthened substrate having a depth of compression of 50 µm or greater (0068), and a central tension of 50 MPa or greater (0068).
Regarding claim 9, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses the scratch-resistant layer comprises SiOxNy (0098).
As to claim 10, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses the compositional gradient layer comprises SiOxNy (0095).
With respect to claim 11, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses the compositional gradient layer has a thickness of about 800 nm or less (0083, 0089, 0096). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 11; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib does not explicitly specify a refractive index of the compositional gradient layer as recited in the claim, but Adib discloses that a refractive index of the compositional gradient layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate and the scratch-resistant layer can be specifically adjusted in order to obtain the desired refractive index gradient of the optical film (0096), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a refractive index of the compositional gradient layer with respect to the substrate in portions that contact the substrate and the scratch-resistant layer in portions that contact the scratch-resistant layer in order to obtain a desired refractive index gradient of the optical film.
As to claim 13, Hoshino discloses a consumer electronic product (abstr.) comprising a housing – element 110 – having a front surface, a back surface and side surfaces (0038, Fig. 2), electrical components located within the housing, the electrical components including a controller, a memory and a display – it is a display device that is located within the housing (0041-0047), the display adjacent the front surface of the housing (0042, Fig. 2), and a cover substrate disposed over the display (0051, Fig. 2), wherein at least one portion of the housing comprises the coated article of claim 1, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino, in view of Adib, and further in view of Walker, Jr. et al. (US 2013/0038939 A1) (“Walker”).
With respect to claim 3, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1, but are silent regarding a photopic reflectance at the first portion and the second portion as recited in the claim. Walker discloses an optical coating forming an anti-reflective surface, the coating to be used on display devices (abstr., 0039-0040), wherein the optical coating exhibits photopic reflectance of less than 2% at 550 nm (0077), which is within the range recited in the claim, and at an incident illumination angle of 12˚ with respect to the direction of the surface of the coating, which is within the recited range (0077), measured over an optical wavelength regime in a range of from 380 to 800 nm which overlaps the recited range (0077). The Examiner notes the angle of 12˚ was interpreted as corresponding to the limitation of “about 10 degrees” of the claim, and thus being within the recited range. The range of the photopic reflectance overlaps the range recited in claim 3; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second portions of the major surface of Hoshino with an anti-reflective coating to provide them with an anti-reflective property.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino, in view of Adib, Lee et al. (US 2015/0044482 A1) (“Lee”) and Lee et al. (US 2014/0113083 A1) (“Lee 2”).
With respect to claim 7, Hoshino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses that additional layers may be added to the optical film (0079). Adib discloses that the capping layer – element 150 – can be formed as a compositional gradient layer (0103), interpreted by the Examiner as an additional compositional gradient layer of the article of the claim. Adib is silent with respect to an easy-to-clean coating and a fingerprint resistant layer, wherein the additional compositional gradient layer is between the fingerprint resistant layer and the scratch-resistant layer. Lee discloses a fingerprint resistant layer – element 210 - for electronic devices (abstr., 0005, 0040, 0043, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the article of Hoshino and Adib a fingerprint resistant layer to provide fingerprint resistance to the optical film of Adib.
The references are silent with respect to an easy-to-clean coating provided on the article. Lee 2 discloses an easy-to-clean coating to be formed on an optical coating in electronic products (0002, 0003, 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an easy-to-clean coating on the optical film of Adib and Lee as it is known in the art to form easy-to-clean coatings on optical films of electronic devices.
Regarding claim 8, Hochino and Adib teach the article of claim 1. Adib discloses that additional layers may be added to the optical film (0079). Adib discloses that the capping layer – element 150 – can be an anti-reflective layer, formed on the scratch-resistant layer (0103). Adib is silent with respect to an easy-to-clean coating and a fingerprint resistant layer, wherein the anti-reflective coating is between the fingerprint resistant layer and the scratch-resistant layer. Lee discloses a fingerprint resistant layer – element 210 - for electronic devices (abstr., 0005, 0040, 0043, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the article of Hoshino and Adib a fingerprint resistant layer to provide fingerprint resistance to the optical film of Adib.
The references are silent with respect to an easy-to-clean coating provided on the article. Lee 2 discloses an easy-to-clean coating to be formed on an optical coating in electronic products (0002, 0003, 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an easy-to-clean coating on the optical film of Adib and Lee as it is known in the art to form easy-to-clean coatings on optical films of electronic devices.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and corrected with respect to the claim objection as discussed above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Hoshino and Adib fail to teach or suggest the coated article as recited in claim 4.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights