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 .
Applicant’s submission, filed 15 January 2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 10, 11, 23, 24 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-22, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin et al. (USPN 2015/0322270).
With regard to claim 1,
Amin et al. disclose a transparent article, comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a first primary surface (112) and a second primary surface (114), the primary surfaces opposing one another; and an optical film structure (120) defining an outer surface, the optical film structure disposed on the first primary surface (see fig 1), wherein the optical film structure comprises a scratch-resistant layer (paragraph 132) and a plurality of alternating high RI (130A) and low RI layers (130B), wherein the optical film structure further comprises an outer structure (lower grouping) and an inner structure (upper grouping), the scratch-resistant layer (see paragraph 132) disposed between the outer and inner structures (e.g. table 9 sialon 350nm layer), wherein one or both of: (i) the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer (130c) in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (see figs. 3,4); and (ii) a sum of the physical thicknesses of all of the low RI layers in the outer structure is less than about 200 nm (see paragraph 125), and further wherein the at least one medium RI layer comprises a refractive index from 1.55 to 1.80 (see paragraph 122), each of the high RI layers comprises a refractive index of greater than 1.80 (See paragraph 122), and each of the low RI layers comprises a refractive index of less than 1.55 (see paragraph 122).
With regard to claim 2,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (due to the periodic structure, see paragraph 121).
With regard to claim 3,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein a sum of the physical thicknesses of all of the low RI layers in the outer structure is less than about 75 nm (see paragraph 125).
With regard to claim 4,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 3, wherein the transparent article exhibits an average first-surface photopic reflectance of less than 7% and a first-surface reflectance at a wavelength of 940 nm of less than 8%, each as measured at a near-normal angle of incidence (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 5,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein a sum of the physical thicknesses of all of the low RI layers in the outer structure is less than about 200 nm (see paragraph 125), and further wherein the transparent article exhibits an average first-surface photopic reflectance of less than 3% and a first-surface reflectance at a wavelength of 940 nm of less than 5%, each as measured at a near-normal angle of incidence (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 6,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (due to the periodic structure, see paragraph 121), and further wherein the substrate comprises a glass-ceramic substrate having an elastic modulus of greater than 85 GPa and a fracture toughness of greater than 0.8 MPa m (See paragraph 96,97,113, when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 7,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the optical film structure has a physical thickness of from about 200 nm to 5000 nm (see paragraph 7), wherein the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic reflectance of less than 6%, and further wherein the article exhibits one or more of: (a) a hardness of greater than 11 GPa at an indentation depth of about 20 nm or 40 nm; (b) a hardness of greater than 15 GPa at an indentation depth of 100 nm; and (c) a hardness of greater than 16 GPa at an indentation depth of 125 nm, as measured by a Berkovich Hardness Test at the outer surface of the optical film structure (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 8,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the optical film structure has a physical thickness of from about 200 nm to 800 nm (see paragraph 7), wherein the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic reflectance of less than 6%, and further wherein the article exhibits one or more of: (a) a hardness of greater than 9 GPa at an indentation depth of 20 nm; (b) a hardness of greater than 10 GPa at an indentation depth of 40 nm; (c) a hardness of greater than 12 GPa at an indentation depth of 100 nm; and (d) a hardness of greater than 12 GPa at an indentation depth of 125 nm, as measured by a Berkovich Hardness Test at the outer surface of the optical film structure (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 9,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the scratch-resistant layer has a physical thickness from about 100 nm to less than 2000 nm (see table 9, 350nm), and further wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (due to the periodic structure, paragraph 121).
With regard to claim 12,
Amin et al. disclose a display device comprising the transparent article of claim 1, wherein the transparent article serves as a protective cover for the display device (See paragraph 3).
With regard to claim 13,
Amin et al. disclose a transparent article, comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a first primary surface (112) and a second primary surface (114), the primary surfaces opposing one another; and an optical film structure (120) defining an outer surface, the optical film structure disposed on the first primary surface (see figure 1), wherein the optical film structure comprises a scratch-resistant layer (see paragraph 132) and a plurality of alternating high RI (130B) and low RI layers (130A), wherein the optical film structure further comprises an outer structure (130a) and an inner structure (130b) , the scratch-resistant layer disposed between the outer and inner structures (e.g., table 9, 350nm sialon), wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer (130c) in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (due to the periodic structure, paragraph 121), wherein the at least one medium RI layer comprises a refractive index from 1.55 to 1.80 (paragraph 122), each of the high RI layers comprises a refractive index of greater than 1.80 (paragraph 122), and each of the low RI layers comprises a refractive index of less than 1.55 (paragraph 122), wherein the optical film structure has a physical thickness of from about 200 nm to 5000 nm (see paragraph 7), wherein the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic reflectance of less than 6%, and further wherein the article exhibits one or more of: (i) a hardness of greater than 11 GPa at an indentation depth of about 20 nm or 40 nm; (ii) a hardness of greater than 15 GPa at an indentation depth of 100 nm; and (iii) a hardness of greater than 16 GPa at an indentation depth of 125 nm, as measured by a Berkovich Hardness Test at the outer surface of the optical film structure (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 14,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the substrate is a glass-ceramic material that comprises an elastic modulus of greater than 85 GPa and a fracture toughness of greater than 0.8 MPa.√m (See paragraph 96,97,113, when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 15,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the optical film structure exhibits a residual compressive stress of from 700 MPa to 1100 MPa and an elastic modulus of from 140 GPa to 200 GPa (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 16,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the optical film structure exhibits an elastic modulus of from 140 GPa to 180 GPa (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 17,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the substrate has a residual surface compressive stress of from 200 MPa to 1200 MPa and a depth of compression (DOC) of from 5 μm to 150 μm (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 18,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein 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 (see paragraph 114, when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 19,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the substrate has a residual surface compressive stress of from 200 MPa to 400 MPa (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 20,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the inner structure comprises one of (a) a plurality of alternating high RI (130B) and low RI layers (130A); (b) a refractive index gradient; and (c) a compositional gradient.
With regard to claim 21,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the optical film structure has a physical thickness of from about 800 nm to 4000 nm (See paragraph 7).
With regard to claim 22,
Amin et al. disclose a display device comprising the transparent article of claim 13, wherein the transparent article serves as a protective cover for the display device (paragraph 3).
With regard to claim 25,
Amin et al. disclose a transparent article, comprising: a substrate (110) comprising a first primary surface (112) and a second primary surface(114), the primary surfaces opposing one another; and an optical film structure (120) defining an outer surface, the optical film structure disposed on the first primary surface (see figure 1), wherein the optical film structure comprises a scratch-resistant layer (see paragraph 132) and a plurality of alternating high RI (130B) and low RI (130A) layers, wherein the optical film structure further comprises an outer structure (upper) and an inner structure (lower), the scratch-resistant layer disposed between the outer and inner structures (e.g., table 9 350nm sialon layer), wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer (130c) in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (due to the periodic structure, paragraph 121), wherein the at least one medium RI layer comprises a refractive index from 1.55 to 1.80 (see paragraph 122), each of the high RI layers comprises a refractive index of greater than 1.80 (paragraph 122), and each of the low RI layers comprises a refractive index of less than 1.55 (paragraph 122), wherein the optical film structure has a physical thickness of from about 200 nm to 800 nm (see paragraph 7), wherein the article exhibits a first-surface average photopic reflectance of less than 6%, and further wherein the article exhibits one or more of: (i) a hardness of greater than 9 GPa at an indentation depth of 20 nm; (ii) a hardness of greater than 10 GPa at an indentation depth of 40 nm; (iii) a hardness of greater than 12 GPa at an indentation depth of 100 nm; and (iv) a hardness of greater than 12 GPa at an indentation depth of 125 nm, as measured by a Berkovich Hardness Test at the outer surface of the optical film structure (when the prior art discloses claimed structure, properties thereof are presumed to be inherent).
With regard to claim 26,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claim 3, further wherein the outer structure comprises at least one medium RI layer in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers (see paragraph 121)
With regard to claims 27,28,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claims 13, 25, wherein the outer structure comprises at least two medium RI layers, each medium RI layer in contact with one or both of: (a) the scratch-resistant layer and (b) one of the high RI layers, and further wherein each medium RI layer comprises a refractive index from 1.55 to 1.80 (see paragraphs 121,122).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 11, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (as above).
With regard to claims 10,11, 23, 24,
Amin et al. disclose the transparent article of claims 1,13, while Amin et al. do not explicitly disclose a textured or diffractive surface region, such regions were well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to the same to incorporate into the article of Amin et al. in order to reduce reflectivity.
Response to Arguments
While the applicant argues, with respect to the rejections of claims 10, 11, 23, 24, that the examiner provided no reasoning to combine the features with the prior art article, the examiner asserts that reasoning, i.e., to reduce reflectivity, the purpose of the prior art reference, was provided in the rejection. Additionally, while the applicant argues that the features are utilized in the instant application for antiglare capability rather than reflectivity reduction, the presence of an alternative possible motivation for combination does not obviate the motivation asserted by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights