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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed December 2, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2008/0072956 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 9,720,141 B1).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 2008/0072956 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sharma et al. teach a window comprising: a base layer 70; a first layer 10 disposed on the base layer71; a second layer 1 disposed on the first layer 10; and a third layer 3 disposed on the second layer 1, wherein the second layer 1 comprises silica (SiO2), fused silica, fluorine-doped fused silica, magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), aluminum fluoride (AlF3), yttrium fluoride (YF3), ytterbium fluoride (YbF3), aluminum oxide (A1203), magnesium oxide (MgO), or a combination thereof, and the second layer 1 has a refractive index from about 1.48 to 1.60 at a wavelength of about 450nm (Figures 1-2, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0021]-[0049]), which is in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.6 at a wavelength of about 550 nm.
In regard to claim 3, Sharma et al. teach the second layer 1 disposed directly on the first layer 10 , and the third layer 3 disposed directly on the second layer 1 (Figures 1-2, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0021]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 4, Sharma et al. teach the first layer 10 comprising magnesium fluoride (MgF2), magnesium oxide (MgO), or a combination thereof (Figures 1-2, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0021]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 8, Sharma et al. teach the third layer 3 comprising a fluorine-containing polymer (Figures 1-2, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0021]-[0049]).
In regard to claim 17, Sharma et al. teach a window comprising: a base layer 70; a first layer 10 disposed on the base layer 70; a second layer 1 disposed on the first layer 10; and a third layer 3 disposed on the second layer 1, wherein the first layer 10 comprises a first material, the second layer 1 comprises a second material, and the first material and the second material each independently include silica (SiO2), fused silica, fluorine-doped fused silica, magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), aluminum fluoride (AlF3), yttrium fluoride (YF3), ytterbium fluoride (YbF3), aluminum oxide (A1203), magnesium oxide (MgO), or a combination thereof (Figures 1-2, pages 2-6, paragraphs [0021]-[0049]).
However, Sharma et al. fail to teach the base layer comprising a glass substrate or a polymer film.
Cheng et al. teach a base layer 102 comprising a glass substrate or a polymer film (Figure 2, columns 4-7, 11-67, 1-67, 1-17, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window structure as taught Sharma et al. with the cover structure having a base layer comprising a glass substrate or a polymer film as taught by Cheng et al. to provide a clearer, sharper image for the user (column 1, line 65-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9-13, 15 are 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.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 5. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 13. Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon objected claim 15.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 18, the prior art of record Sharma et al. (US 2008/0072956 A1) does not disclose, make obvious, or otherwise suggest the structure of the applicant's claimed invention together with the other limitations of the dependent claims 19-20, such as the configuration of the display module, window, base layer, first layer, third layer, second layer and its material, refractive index and wavelength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cheng et al. (US 9,720,141 B1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to display devices with windows:
Bellman et al. (US 2021/0087105 A1) Benoit et al. (US 2016/0003998 A1)
Dasbach (US 2012/0224256 A1) Ngo (US 2020/0200947 A1)
Yan et al. (US 2012/0019915 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached on 571-570-3691. 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.
IMS
September 8, 2025
/IDA M SOWARD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights