Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Species I embodied in Fig. 1: claims 1-2, 4-15 and 20-27, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 01/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 16-19 And 28-29 are withdrawn.
Allowable subject Matter
6. Claim 27 is allowed over the prior art of record. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Interpreting the claims in light of the specification, examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the independent claims 27.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15 & 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman et al (Pub No. 2018/0011225) and further in view of Hart et al (Pub No. 2020/0310000).
Regarding claim 1, Bellman et al discloses a cover article for a sensor (Fig. 43A: cover substrate 4112 for a mobile device display-4110 & Para. 7: touch screen), comprising: a substrate comprising a thickness from 50 µm to 5000 µm (Para. 141: The substrate 110 thickness ranging from about 100 μm to about 5 mm) (Note: In case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. -MPEP §2144.05 -Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges), an outer primary surface and an inner primary surface, wherein the outer and inner primary surfaces are opposite of one another and the substrate is a chemically-strengthened glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate (Para. 140: Substrate 110 include a glass ceramic substrate & Para. 81-82 & 98: optical surface coating opposite the substrate) & (Fig. 2-3: Substate-110 & optical coating 120); and an outer layered film disposed on the outer primary surface of the substrate (Para. 11 & 13: Anti-reflective coating over the scratch-resistant layer which defines the anti-reflective surface & Para. 8 & 82: The optical coating disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface).
Bellman et al is silent regarding the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 10% for wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle incidence from 8° to 60°.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hart et al discloses the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 10% for wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle incidence from 8° to 60° (Fig. 10A & 11A: Graph shows surface average reflectance is less than 10% for wavelengths 1000nm while angle incidence is 8°) (Para. 81: first-surface average reflectance of less than 10% for wavelengths of 1000 & 134-135 & 138). (Note: In case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. -MPEP §2144.05 -Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the optical coating system of Hart’s disclosure with the substate having special coated article, as taught by Bellman. Doing so would have resulted in creating special optical surface to generate desire reflectance range for the specific surface. In this case, the optical performance for display device can be improved.
Regarding claim 2, Bellman et al discloses the outer layered film comprises a scratch resistant layer comprising a nitride or an oxynitride and having a thickness from about 80 nm to 10,000 nm (Para. 81: nitride or an oxynitride material & Para. 83: coating 140 may include a scratch-resistant layer & Para. 78: Thickness ranges from 500nm to 5000nm).
Regarding claim 4, Bellman et al discloses the outer layered film comprises a plurality of alternating high refractive index and low refractive index layers (Para. 12: High RI and low RI), and wherein each of the high refractive index layers comprises a nitride or an oxynitride (Para. 81: nitride or an oxynitride material) and has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of each of the low refractive index layers (Para. 81: The second high RI layers may include a material having a refractive index greater than about 1.85 and the first low RI layers may include a material having a refractive index less than about 1.75).
Regarding claim 5, Bellman et al discloses the low refractive index layers is a capping layer defining an outermost surface of the outer layered film and the capping layer has a thickness of at least 110 nm (Para. 78: Layer thickness range from 2nm to 200nm), and further wherein the outer layered film comprises an antireflective region over the scratch resistant layer (Para. 155 & 210: scratch resistant layer), and the low refractive index layers of the antireflective region comprise a total thickness of less than 275 nm (Para. 78: antireflective region thickness range about 2-200nm).
Regarding claim 7, Bellman et al is silent regarding the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 5% for infrared wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle of incidence from 8° to 40°.
Hart et al discloses the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 5% for infrared wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle of incidence from 8° to 40° (Fig. 10A & 11A: Graph shows surface average reflectance is less than 10% for wavelengths 1000nm while angle incidence is 8°) (Para. 81 & 134-135 & 138).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use maximum hardness range for the device screen to ensure durability of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Bellman et al discloses the cover article further exhibits a first-surface average reflectance from 2% to 5% for wavelengths from 800 nm to 1000 nm at an angle of incidence of 8 (Fig. 11 & Para. 27).
Regarding claim 9, Bellman et al discloses the cover article further exhibits a first-surface reflected CIE color for all angles of incidence from 0 to 90 with a* from -10 to +10 and b* from -12 to +5 (CIE coordinate b*), as measured under illumination from a D65 illuminant (Para. 115-117).
Regarding claim 10, Bellman et al discloses the cover article exhibits a first- surface average photopic reflectance of less than 2% for an angle of incidence of about
PNG
media_image1.png
11
11
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Para. 106).
Regarding claim 11, Bellman et al discloses the scratch resistant layer and each of the high refractive index layers comprises SiNX or SiOXNy (Para. 168 & 77: SiNX).
Regarding claim 12, Bellman et al discloses the outer layered film comprises an antireflective region over the scratch resistant layer, and the antireflective region comprises at least five alternating high refractive index and low refractive index layers (Para. 78: LOW & High RI).
Regarding claim 13, Bellman et al discloses the outer layered film comprises an optical inteference layer between the scratch resistant layer and the substrate, the optical interference layer comprising alternating high refractive index and low refractive index layers (Para. 93: alternating high refractive index and low refractive index layers).
Regarding claim 14, Bellman et al discloses the thickness of the capping layer is from 110 nm to about 200 nm (Para. 78).
Regarding claim 15, Bellman et al discloses a high refractive index layer adjacent to the capping layer has a thickness from about 10 nm to less than 150 nm (Para. 78-81).
Regarding claim 20, Bellman et al discloses the substrate has a residual surface compressive stress of from 200 MPa to 1200 MPa and a depth of compression (DOC) of from 5 to 150 (Para. 132: Different MPa & Para. 141: The substrate 110 thickness ranging from about 100 μm to about 5 mm).
Regarding claim 21, Bellman et al discloses the substrate further exhibits a maximum central tension (CT) value from 80 MPa to 200 MPa, and further wherein the substrate has a thickness of about 1.5 mm or less (Para. 132: CT 95, 90, 85, 80, MPa & Para. 82: thickness in the range from about 1 nm).
Regarding claim 22, Bellman et al discloses the substrate has a residual surface compressive stress of from 200 MPa to 400 MPa (Para. 132).
Regarding claim 23, Bellman et al discloses the cover article exhibits an average failure stress of 800 MPa (Para. 132).
Regarding claim 24, Bellman et al discloses a cover glass (Fig. 43A: Glass screen); and an adhesive backing disposed on the cover glass (Para. 62 & Fig. 43B: cover glass on the phone with adhesive), wherein the adhesive backing is for attachment to the smart phone, and further wherein at least one portion of the cover glass comprises a cover article of claim 1 (Fig. 43A).
Regarding claim 25, Bellman et al discloses electronic product, comprising: a housing comprising a front surface, a back surface and side surfaces (Fig. 43A); electronic components at least partially within the housing, the electronic components comprising at least one of a display and a sensor, the display at or adjacent to the front surface of the housing and the sensor at or adjacent to the front surface or the back surface of the housing (Para. 62 & Fig. 43A); and a cover disposed over at least one of the display and the sensor, wherein at least one portion of the cover comprises the cover article of claim 1 (Para. 142 & 62 & Fig. 43A-43B: Glass screen & Device cover).
Regarding claim 26, Bellman et al discloses a cover article for a sensor (Fig. 43A: cover substrate 4112 for a mobile device display-4110 & Para. 7: touch screen), comprising: a substrate comprising a thickness from 50 µm to 5000 µm (Para. 141: The substrate 110 thickness ranging from about 100 μm to about 5 mm) (Note: In case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. -MPEP §2144.05 -Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges), an outer primary surface and an inner primary surface, wherein the outer and inner primary surfaces are opposite of one another and the substrate is a chemically-strengthened glass substrate or a glass-ceramic substrate (Para. 140: Substrate 110 include a glass ceramic substrate & Para. 81-82 & 98: optical surface coating opposite the substrate) & (Fig. 2-3: Substate-110 & optical coating 120); and an outer layered film disposed on the outer primary surface of the substrate (Para. 11 & 13: Anti-reflective coating over the scratch-resistant layer which defines the anti-reflective surface & Para. 8 & 82: The optical coating disposed on at least the first portion and the second portion of the major surface), wherein the outer layered film exhibits a hardness of at least 8 GPa, as measured with a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test from the outermost surface of the outer layered film to a depth from about 100 nm to about 500 nm (Para. 8: Substrate hardness of about 8 GPa or greater at an indentation depth of about 50 nm or greater as measured on the anti-reflective surface by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test) & (Para. 98: Depth about 100 nm or greater hardness is greater than 8 GPa).
Bellman et al is silent regarding the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 10% for wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle incidence from 8° to 60°.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hart et al discloses the cover article exhibits a first-surface average reflectance of less than 10% for wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle incidence from 8° to 60° (Fig. 10A & 11A: Graph shows surface average reflectance is less than 10% for wavelengths 1000nm while angle incidence is 8°) (Para. 81 & 134-135 & 138). (Note: In case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. -MPEP §2144.05 -Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the optical coating system of Hart’s disclosure with the substate having special coated article, as taught by Bellman. Doing so would have resulted in creating special optical surface to generate desire reflectance range for the specific surface. In this case, the optical performance for display device can be improved.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellman et al (Pub No. 2018/0011225), in view of Hart et al (Pub No. 2020/0310000) and further in view of Shandon Hart (Pub No. 2021/0033751).
Regarding claim 6, Bellman et al is silent regarding the cover article further exhibits a two- surface average transmittance of greater than 85% for infrared wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle of incidence from 8° to 40°.
Shandon Hart discloses the cover article further exhibits a two- surface average transmittance of greater than 85% for infrared wavelengths from 1000 nm to 1700 nm for at least one angle of incidence from 8° to 40° (Para. 64: average light transmission over the optical wavelength regime of about 85% or greater & Para. 45: wavelength 900nm-1000nm & Para. 47: 0° to 40°).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use maximum hardness range for the device screen to ensure durability of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648