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 Species A1 and Species B1 in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It is noted that while Applicant indicated claim 6 to be the claim directed to Species B2, it is noted that in the Species Election, it is actually claim 7 that is directed to Species B2. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-35 are examined on the merits below.
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 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-35 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.
As recited, both claim 1 and claim 25 requires the respective hard coating layers to consist of a) a siloxane-epoxy-based compound. It is noted that while the hard coating can consist of b) a product produced from curing of a hard coating composition, this is different from what is required in claim 1. Two salient differences are that while b) allows the presence of catalyst and various initiators (both of which are used in the preparation of the hard coating), recitation a) would preclude the presence of both catalyst and any initiator, wherein at least initiators are necessary for the formation of the actual hard coating layer. For prior art rejection below, interpretation b) is taken.
As claims 2, 4-6, and 8-24 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2, 4-6, and 8-24 are also held to be rejected.
As claims 26-35 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 25, claims 26-35 are also held to be rejected.
Claims 12 and 30 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.
As phrased, each of claims 12 and 30 precludes the presence of catalyst and various initiators (both of which are used in the preparation of the hard coating) from the (precursor) hard coating composition. For reasons as discussed in ¶ 3 above, claims 12 and 30 are indefinite.
As claims 13 and 14 depend on claim 12, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 12, claims 12 and 13 are also held to be rejected.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, which recites the (precursor) hard coating composition in a closed manner. As such, an issue of indefiniteness is introduced when claim 13 seeks to add an additional element to this closed list.
Claim 26 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.
While the display module can have a single arbitrarily defined upper surface without requiring further limitations, “Upper surfaces” of the display module is an indefinite recitation, for it is unclear what correspond to the two upper surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of claims 6, 22, and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to for improper Markush recitation.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 15, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0131047 A1 (“Saylor”) in view of U.S. 2020/0301047 A1 (“Santan”) and WO 2021/172200 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication, U.S. 2023/0138855 A1, “Taguchi”).
Considering claims 1, 2, 10, and 12, Saylor disclose an ophthalmic lens comprising three transparent laminate layers (termed frontside laminate, lens body, and backside laminate), wherein each laminate comprises a respective outer functional layer, a respective outer interface layer, a respective substrate, a respective inner interface layer, and a respective inner functional layer. (Saylor Table 1, reproduced infra). Saylor is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (transparent optical structures). For the frontside laminate, Saylor discloses usage of an antistatic outer functional layer, a hard coat for the outer interface layer, a substrate made of polyimide or PET, which respectively maps onto the claimed upper antistatic layer, hard coating layer, and base film.
With the inner functional layer of the frontside laminate being a multilayered antireflective interference stack having alternating high and low refractive index layers such as silica (RI lower than that of either PI or PET), the inner functional layer of the frontside laminate maps onto the claimed optical layer. (Id. Table 1 and ¶¶ 0007, 0017, and 0086). Finally, Saylor discloses that the outer functional layer of the lens body can be anti-static, which maps onto the claimed lower antistatic layer. Saylor differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: 1) the provision of an anti-fingerprint layer and 2) usage of a cured coating formed from an epoxy-silane composition.
Re: deficiency 1), it is noted that it is well-known in the art of optical materials to overcoat an ophthalmic lens that already has an antistatic layer with an anti-soiling coating that exhibits high water contact angle. (Santan ¶¶ 0002-0006). In view of the information that Santan notes to be well-known in the art of ophthalmic lenses, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to have deposited an outermost anti-soiling coating exhibiting high water contact angle on the outer functional layer of the frontside laminate, as to increase ease of cleaning of the lens.
Re: deficiency 2), usage of a hard coat containing a siloxane material formed from a cured composition containing an epoxysilane is known in the art, wherein the hard coat may be overcoated with an antistatic layer. (Taguchi ¶¶ 0023 and 0039-0051). Taguchi particularly notes that its hard coat to exhibit low curl after curing and is particularly suited as a coating applied onto a substrate of PET or polyimide. (Id. ¶¶ 0014 and 0021-0022). As such, this hard coat is particularly suited for the types of substrate material used in Saylor. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used the hard coat of Taguchi to form the hard coat (forming the outer interface layer of the frontside laminate) in Saylor for the property of low curl. Saylor in view of Santan and Taguchi renders obvious claims 1 and 2.
Considering claim 4, the respective substrate layer of either the lens body or the backside laminate may be made of glass.
Considering claim 5, the layer sequence of Saylor, Santan, and Taguchi as discussed above reads on the claimed cover protective layer. The substrate of the lens body maps onto the claimed module protective layer, and the backside laminate contains a layer of glass.
Considering claims 8 and 9, glass substrate layer of the lens body maps onto the claimed glass substrate, and the PET substrate layer of the backside laminate maps onto the claimed shock absorbing layer.
Considering claim 11, thickness of the substrate layer of the frontside laminate ranges from ~51 to ~254 µm. (Saylor ¶ 0092). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Considering claim 15, thickness of the hard coat of Taguchi is 2 to 150 µm. (Taguchi ¶ 0009). This overlaps the claimed range.
Considering claim 17, given the claimed surface resistance is a requirement for anti-static performance, the value recited is obvious.
Considering claims 18-21, these limitations are obvious in view of teachings of Santan. (Santan ¶¶ 0012-0016).
Considering claim 23, in view of the provision of anti-reflective layers in the frontside laminate of Saylor, the limitation of claim 23 is obvious.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-17, and 24; and claims 25-30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0310494 A1 (“Ahn”) in view of U.S. 2021/0095174 A1 (“Ahn ‘174”) and U.S. 2020/0257338 A1 (“Park ‘338”).
Considering claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12-14, and 24; and claims 25, 29, and 30, in various embodiments, Ahn discloses a display device having a first window 4030, a second adhesive 4040, and a second window 4050, wherein the first window can be (and is in specific examples) an ultra-thin glass (UTG). (Ahn ¶¶ 0108-0130, 0205-0215; and Fig. 9, reproduced infra). In particular examples, Ahn discloses that its first window is UTG and that its second window is made of polyimide. (Id. ¶ 0191). Ahn is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (protective cover plate for a foldable display device). (Id. ¶ 0075).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ahn differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: the provision of various coatings applied to the second window made of PI. However, in the art of foldable displays, Ahn ‘174 teaches an antistatic PI film that can serve as an outermost window of a display. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0142-0145). In particular, the antistatic PI film comprises a PI substrate having applied to both main surfaces thereof antistatic layers. (Id. ¶ 0043 and Fig. 2). Furthermore, Ahn ‘174 teaches that a hard coating, an anti-fingerprint layer, and a low-refractive index layer may be further included between the base PI substrate and the antistatic layer. (Id. ¶ 0046). It is noted that the sequence of polymeric base/ hard coat/ antistatic layer/ anti-fingerprint layer is known from Park ‘338. (Park ‘338 Fig. 7). As such the provision of various layers above the PI substrate is obvious in view of the teachings of Park ‘338.
As for the low-refractive index layer, as Ahn ‘174 expressly states that such a layer can be placed between the PI substrate and an antistatic layer, and as the lower antistatic layer in Fig. 2 of Ahn ‘174 represents one of a very limited possible locations for placement of an antistatic layer, inclusion of a low-refractive index layer between the PI substrate and the lower antistatic layer is deemed obvious. With low-refractive commonly understood to be refractive index of 1.50 or lower, and with PI having refractive index of ~1.55 to ~1.65, the low-refractive index layer reads on the claimed optical layer. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to use the anti-static PI film of Ahn ‘174 for the second window, to reduce build up of static electricity. (Ahn ‘174 ¶ 0012).
As for the hard coating layer, Ahn teaches a hard coat formed from epoxysilane, in particular one from a silsesquioxane containing epoxy group and with optional usage of epoxy-based crosslinkers. (Id. ¶¶ 0124-0128 and 0132).
Ahn as modified by Ahn ‘174 and Park ‘338 renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4; and claims 25 and 27.
Considering claims 5 and 28 shatterproof coating 4060 in Ahn may be applied as to be above and below the UTG first window layer 4030. (Ahn Figs. 7B, 9, and 10). The shatterproof coating above the UTG first window layer but below the second window is deemed a module protective layer.
Considering claim 8, as an alternate to the rejection of claim 1 above, the first window may be a PET film. (Ahn ¶ 0108).
Considering claims 11 and 15, Ahn ‘174 teaches base layer having thickness of 10 to 500 µm and hard coat with thickness of 10 µm. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0054 and 0190).
Considering claims 16, 17, and 31, Ahn ‘174 teaches the usage of carbon nanotubes as material responsible for antistatic properties; furthermore, the requisite surface resistance is taught. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0018-0019 and 0040).
Considering claims 23 and 35, in view of the provision of anti-reflective layers on the second window of Ahn, the limitation of claim 23 is obvious. (Ahn ¶ 0120).
Considering claims 26 and 27, as the anti-fingerprint layer is the outermost layer, and as the display device of Ahn is foldable, the configurations recited can be readily obtained.
Claims 18-21; and claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn, Ahn ‘174, and Park ‘338, as respectively applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0239360 A1 (“Minowa”).
Considering claims 18-21; and claims 32 and 33, the usage of an alkoxysilane having a polyalkylene glycol group and a perfluorinated moiety to form an anti-fouling layer that suppresses presence of fingerprints and exhibits high water contact angle is well-known in the art. (Minowa ¶¶ 0035-0042). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used the fluorinated silanes named in Minowa to form the antifingerprint layer, for the benefits mentioned in Minowa. (Id. ¶ 0013).
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781