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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, and 8-11; and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0011468 A1 (“Hart”) as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0362444 A1 (“Paulson”).
Considering claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, Hart discloses coated glass that exhibits anti-glare and anti-reflection properties, the coated glass useful as the cover substrate of an electronic device (e.g. tablet or mobile phone) that additionally includes a housing, to which the cover substrate is integrated to form the external enclosure of the electronic device. (Hart ¶ 0124 and Figs. 18A and 18B). Hart further discloses that located within the enclosure is a display (viz. an element that emits light). (Id. ¶ 0124). Hart is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (transparent cover substrate of an electronic device, in particular one comprising an internal display.
Hart discloses that its coated glass comprises a glass substrate having a structured surface exhibiting anti-glare properties and an anti-reflection coating deposited immediately thereupon, wherein the coating comprises layers of high refractive index material alternating with layers of low refractive index material. (Id. ¶¶ 0075-0096 and Fig. 1C, reproduced infra).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specific description in Hart re: the number of layers in the antireflective coating 60 is as follows, (emphases added):
In embodiments, the antireflective coating 60 is configured according to a multilayer antireflective coating or film structure, as prepared to effect antiglare, optical properties for the article employing it. As an example, the antireflective coating 60 includes a plurality of alternating low refractive index and high refractive index layers 62 and 64, respectively. In some implementations, the antireflective coating 60 can have a total of three (3) to nine (9) layers, e.g., 3 layers, 4 layers, 5 layers, 6 layers, 7 layers, 8 layers or 9 layers in total. Further, each of the low refractive index layers 62 comprises a refractive index of less than or equal to about 1.8 and about the same or greater than a refractive index of the substrate 10; and each of the high refractive index layers 64 comprises a refractive index that is greater than 1.8.
As Hart never expressly requires a low RI layer to be the uppermost layer, there are such four non-overlapping possible configurations for the layers:
1) odd number of layers, with a low RI layer being the bottommost layer (as shown in Fig. 1C of Hart);
2) odd number of layers, with a high RI layer being the bottommost layer and the uppermost layer;
3) even number of layers, with a low RI layer being the bottommost layer and a high RI layer being the uppermost; and
4) even number of layers, with a high RI layer being the bottommost layer and a low RI layer being the uppermost.
While configuration 1) is shown to be the preferred configuration (as it is the one illustrated and used in the examples), each of configurations 2) – 4) is also disclosed and or suggested. With two out of the four possible configurations resulting in a configuration reading on that required in claim 1, Hart is considered to have disclosed the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity. Were this to be contested (which is not conceded), then selecting configurations 2) or 3) is obvious in view of the disclosures of Hart. Applicant is hereby reminded that a reference is pertinent for all it teaches, and that non-preferred embodiments nonetheless constitute prior art and are not considered to teach away. (See MPEP § 2123). Furthermore, as the rejection is instated under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), allegations against rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not pertinent.
Hart further discloses that the hardness of the air-side surface of the anti-reflection coating (viz. hardness of the outermost layer) is at least 8 GPa. (Id. ¶ 0093). With quartz having an indentation hardness of 10 GPa, the disclosure of Hart at least overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Furthermore, Hart discloses that the dielectric layer exhibiting the greatest influence on scratch resistance is the uppermost high RI layer, with a thickness of 75 to175 nm. (Hart ¶ 0078). With Hart disclosing that hardness measured at an indentation depth of 50 nm (viz. at a depth still within the uppermost high RI layer) to be 12 GPa or greater, when Si3N4 or SiNx is used (two of the three exemplary materials disclosed for high RI layer), the resulting layer have hardness within the required hardness range. (Id. ¶ 0078). It is further noted that respective hardnesses of the Si3N4, SiOxNy having RI > 1.8, SiOxNy having RI < 1.8, and SiO2 prepared according to the techniques used in Hart are known. In particular, the reference Paulson (also from Corning, the Applicant for reference Hart) discloses hardness of 24 GPa for Si3N4 (RI of 2.04 at 550 nm), 18 GPa for SiOxNy having RI of 1.86, and 13 GPa for SiOxNy having RI of 1.63, and 7 GPa for SiO2 (RI of 1.47), wherein increasing nitrogen content is associated with increasing RI and increasing hardness. (See Fig. 4 and ¶¶ 0030-0034 of Paulson). As such, for the configurations 2) and 3) above, as high RI layers of Si3N4 or SiOxNy are used as the uppermost layer, and as these layers possess hardness of at least 13 GPa, the coated glass of Hart according to either configuration 2) or 3) and topped with a layer of Si3N4 or SiOxNy is considered to be disclosed with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the claims.
Hart thus anticipates or alternatively renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9.
Considering claims 10, silica is disclosed as the preferred low RI material. (See, e.g. Hart claim 11).
Considering claim 11, configuration 3) above reads on claim 11.
Considering claim 15, the discussion of Hart at ¶¶ 4-10 of the present Office Action is applicable to claim 15. Vickers hardness of 1,300 HV corresponds to 12.75 GPa. With SiOxNy having RI of 1.63 exhibiting hardness of 13 GPa, and with both RI and hardness increase as a function of increasing nitrogen content, each of Si3N4 and SiOxNy having RI > 1.8 possesses the required hardness value.
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 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hart, as applied to claim 15 above.
Considering claim 22, Hart discloses average height (trough to peak) of 50 – 150 nm and average pitch of 10 – 125 µm or 10 – 40 µm. (Id. ¶¶ 0084, 0086, and 0110). There are also specific examples having pitch of 17 µm and average depth between 100 and 250 nm. (Id. ¶ 0127). As such, the disclosures of Hart at least overlap and render obvious the claimed values.
Considering claim 20, Hart discloses that its coated glass transmits >93% of visible light and >93% of IR light having wavelength greater than 850 nm. (Id. ¶ 0154). Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the foregoing that both the design of the glass substrate having structured surface (for anti-glare purposes and having similar designs re: spacing and depth/height of the structured glass substrate) and the coating deposited thereupon (for anti-reflection purposes) are substantially similar to the design aims of the Instant Application. It therefore follows that the coated glass of Hart would also transmit both visible and IR light.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0096686 A1 (“Cool”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cool.
Considering claims 3 and 5, Hart differs from the inventions of claims 3 and 5, as it does not disclose the presence of an infrared sensor (which is necessarily a light sensor) located within the enclosure of the display device.
However, Cool teaches the placement of an infrared sensor with the enclosure of a display device such as a tablet or mobile phone. (Cool ¶¶ 0005-0007 and claims 1, 17, and 19). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have included an infrared sensor within the enclosure of the display device of Hart, as doing so allows the display device to perform tasks such as facial recognition and/or depth sensing. (Cool ¶¶ 0007 and 0035).
Considering claim 6, Hart discloses that its coated glass transmits >93% of visible light and >93% of IR light having wavelength greater than 850 nm. (Id. ¶ 0154). Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the foregoing that both the design of the glass substrate having structured surface (for anti-glare purposes and having similar designs re: spacing and depth/height of the structured glass substrate) and the coating deposited thereupon (for anti-reflection purposes) are substantially similar to the design aims of the Instant Application. It therefore follows that the coated glass of Hart would also transmit both visible and IR light.
Considering claim 21, the rationale for including a generic infrared sensor into the display device of Hart is as set forth in ¶¶ 22 and 23 above. Furthermore, Cool teaches that the infrared sensor can be an infrared image sensor. (Cool. ¶¶ 0017 and 0037). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have included an infrared image sensor for purposes such as processing facial image. (Id. ¶ 0037).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-11; and claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hart as evidenced by Paulson and further in view of Official Notice.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart and Official Notice, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Cool.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart and Official Notice and further in view of Cool.
The Official Notice is as evidenced by U.S. 2015/0323705 A1 (“Hart ‘705”), and U.S. 2018/0081086 A1 (“Wang”).
Below are respective alternate rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-11 and claims 21-22, each rely on respective reasonings discussed above, and the alternate rejection is made solely to address the issue of sequence of low RI and high RI layers.
It is noted that in the art of multilayered anti-reflection coatings made of layers of low RI alternating with layers of high RI, it is known to have a layer of high RI be the outermost inorganic dielectric layer of the multilayered anti-reflection coating. This is taught in each of Hart ‘705 (from Corning) and Wang (from the present Applicant). (See, e.g. Hart ‘705 ¶ 0056 and Fig. 2 and Wang ¶ 0047 and Fig. 8). As Hart does not otherwise specify which type of layer should terminate the sequence of layers of low RI alternating with layers of high RI, the general knowledge in the art (as evidenced by disclosures from two different Applicants) shows that terminating the sequence with a layer having high RI is well-known. The only drawback of this arrangement, as mentioned in Wang, is slightly worse anti-reflection performances; however, the advantage of this arrangement is greater durability, as silicon compounds having greater nitrogen content (and consequently higher RI) and have scratch resistance. (Wang ¶ 0047).
In view of the foregoing express teachings, adopting configuration 2) or 3) as mentioned in ¶ 7 of the present Office Action is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but is not persuasive. Most of Examiner’s response have been incorporated into the rejection above, specifically ¶¶ 5-8 of the present Office Action. Particularly re: Applicant’s allegation that “there is no requirement that the high and low index layers alternate in an even layer arrangement” (pg. 10 ¶ 2 of Response), Examiner reproduces portions of ¶ 0075 of Hart, emphasizing the sections contradicting Applicant’s allegations:
In embodiments, the antireflective coating 60 is configured according to a multilayer antireflective coating or film structure, as prepared to effect antiglare, optical properties for the article employing it. As an example, the antireflective coating 60 includes a plurality of alternating low refractive index and high refractive index layers 62 and 64, respectively. In some implementations, the antireflective coating 60 can have a total of three (3) to nine (9) layers, e.g., 3 layers, 4 layers, 5 layers, 6 layers, 7 layers, 8 layers or 9 layers in total.
Concluding Remarks
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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