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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 requires one of the plastic body and the at least one first stabilizing film layer as having a uniform thickness. However, preceding claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends) requires the plastic body and at least one first stabilizing film layer to both have a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region. Therefore, claim 2 fails to include the limitations of claim 1 (i.e., as selecting either the plastic body or at least one first stabilizing film layer to have a uniform thickness in accordance with claim 2 would render claim 1 unmet).
Claims 3-4 are rejected as failing to include all the limitations of a claim on which they depend, due to dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 requires the at least one first stabilizing film layer to have a uniform thickness, which directly contradicts the requirement of a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region as required by claim 1 (from which claim 3 depends). Therefore, claim 3 fails to include the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 4 is rejected as failing to include all the limitations of a claim on which it depends, due to dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 requires a multi-layer first stabilizing film layer having a uniform thickness, which directly contradicts the requirement of a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region as required by claim 1 (from which claim 4 depends). Therefore, claim 4 fails to include the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al in further view of Hu et al (CN111508343B). Hu is read from an English machine translation which has been placed in the Application File.
With regards to claim 1, Hart discloses a coated article such as a cover sheet for a smartphone display (i.e., a cover plate for a display screen) depicted as including a central planar portion (i.e., a central region) and an adjacent curved planar portion located at a periphery of the central planar portion (i.e., an edge region located in at least a portion of a peripheral side of the central region), wherein the coated article is depicted as having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central planar portion to the adjacent curved planar portion (i.e., the cover plate having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region) (Hart: para. [0005]-[0007] and [0044]; Fig. 1). As best understood, the thickness of the cover plate gradually decreases from “a center” of the central region to the edge region, noting that a center (with respect to a lateral direction of the cover plate) is located at the edge of the central region (the point at which the thickness decreases in a longitudinal direction). Alternatively, the central region may be “central” with respect to a lateral region, but not a longitudinal region, but at an “edge” region with respect to a longitudinal region (where the thickness decreases). The coated article comprises a substrate 110 made of a thermoplastic (i.e., the cover plate comprising a plastic body) onto which an optical coating 120 is stacked (i.e., at least one first stabilizing film layer is arranged in a stacked manner on the plastic body), the substrate 110 having a thickness which gradually decreases from the central planar portion to the adjacent curved planar portion (i.e., the plastic body having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region) (Hart: para. [0043]-[0044]; Fig. 1). As best understood, the optical coating 120 constitutes a stabilizing layer, as it enhanced the stability of the formed coated article (i.e., as technically, any layer provides stability to a formed article).
Hart does not appear to disclose its plastic body or at least one first stabilizing film layer as having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region.
Hu is directed to a display panel and a display device comprising a combination of an encapsulation layer 105, a reflection reducing layer 106, and a cover layer 107 (i.e., a cover plate comprising a body two layers of a first stabilizing film layer, respectively) (Hu - Translation: page 6, second-to-last paragraph, “In one embodiment, Fig. 6…”; Fig. 9). Hu depict its cover layer 107 as having a thickness gradually decreasing from a central region to an edge region (Hu: Fig. 9). Hart and Hu are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of cover materials for a display device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the layer thickness configuration of Hu for the plastic body and at least one further stabilizing film of Hart in order to reduce casting of color in the edge region of the display device, and further, to simplify the overall design of Hart (Hu - Translation: page 7, fourth paragraph, “In one embodiment, Fig. 9…”).
With regards to claim 2, Hart depicts the substrate 110 (i.e., plastic body) as having a thickness which gradually decreases from the planar portion (i.e., central region) to the non-planar portion (i.e., edge region), and the optical coating layer 120 (i.e., first stabilizing film layer) as having a uniform thickness (Hart: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 3, Hart depicts the substrate 110 (i.e., plastic body) as having a thickness which gradually decreases from the planar portion (i.e., central region) to the non-planar portion (i.e., edge region), and the optical coating layer 120 (i.e., first stabilizing film layer) as having a uniform thickness (Hart: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 4, Hart discloses the optical coating layer 120 as comprising a multi-layer structure (i.e., a multi-layer first stabilizing film layer), wherein each layer of the multi-layer structure has a uniform thickness (Hart: Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 5, Hart discloses a cover plate as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Hart further discloses at least one first stabilizing film layer as provided as a multilayer film (see above discussion). Hart does not appear to disclose its plastic body as having a uniform thickness, the at least one first stabilizing film layers having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to the edge region, and a film layer closer to the plastic body among the multi-layer film layers as having a uniform thickness.
Hu is directed to a display panel and a display device comprising a combination of an encapsulation layer 105, a reflection reducing layer 106, and a cover layer 107 (i.e., a cover plate comprising a body two layers of a first stabilizing film layer, respectively) (Hu - Translation: page 6, second-to-last paragraph, “In one embodiment, Fig. 6…”; Fig. 9). Hu depicts its encapsulation layer 105 (i.e., body) as having a uniform thickness, its reflection reducing layer 106 (i.e., film layer closer to the plastic body) as having a uniform thickness, and its cover layer 107 (i.e., film layer further from the plastic body) as having a thickness gradually decreasing from a central region to an edge region (Hu: Fig. 9). Hart and Hu are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of cover materials for a display device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the layer thickness configuration of Hu for the cover plate of Hart in order to reduce casting of color in the edge region of the display device, and further, to simplify the overall design of Hart (Hu - Translation: page 7, fourth paragraph, “In one embodiment, Fig. 9…”).
With regards to claim 6, Hart depicts the substrate 110 as having a lower surface 114 (i.e., an inner surface of the cover plate) as attached to an article with a display (i.e., the inner surface of the cover plate is mated with a mating member) (Hart: para. [0128]; Figs. 1 and 18A-18B). It is noted that Application of the structure of Hart and Hu to the display of Hart results in a curved surface curved at a first curvature along a first curvature of a first trajectory and an outer surface curved along a second trajectory, the second curvature at an intersection point where a perpendicular line in a direction perpendicular to the cover plate intersects with the outer surface being greater than or equal to the first curvature (Hart: Fig. 1; Hu: Fig. 9).
With regards to claim 7, Hart depicts the substrate 110 as having a lower surface 114 (i.e., an inner surface of the cover plate) as attached to an article with a display (i.e., the inner surface of the cover plate is mated with a mating member) (Hart: para. [0128] Figs. 1 and 18A-18B). As the top-most surface of the coated article of Hart is curved, it is considered to constitute a curved surface curved at a specific curvature (i.e., a second curvature) along a trajectory (i.e., a second trajectory) (Hart: Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, as best understood, the structure depicted by Hu includes, in a section perpendicular to a first direction, a cross section of the cover plate as having an arched surface with a thicker middle and two thinner periphery sides (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, an orthogonal projection of the cover plate in a horizontal plane is quasi elliptical (Hu: Fig. 9).
With regards to claim 10, Hart discloses a cover plate as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Hart further discloses the thickness (i.e., as best understood, a maximum thickness) of the substrate 110 (i.e., plastic body) as ranging from about 100 microns to about 5 mm (i.e., about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm) (Hart: para. [0121]). This range overlaps the claimed range of about 1.2 mm to about 1.7 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05. With regards to the minimum thickness, although Hart does not disclose specific values for its minimum thickness, Hart teaches that the thickness variations of its substrate 110 may vary for aesthetic and functional reasons, and further, that the thickness should be selected based on end use (Hart: para. [0106]). In other words, Hart directly instructs a person of ordinary skill to adjust and/or optimize the thickness variation (i.e., including the thickness decreasing edge portion of the substrate) depending on the desired function and aesthetics (see above discussion). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the minimum thickness in the structure of Hart (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 11, the optical coating layer 120 comprises a plurality of layers 130 formed of high hardness materials (i.e., can be considered to constitute a first stabilizing layer further comprising a hardening coating disposed on a side of the first stabilizing film layer away from the plastic body) (Hart: para. [0059]; Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 12, Hart discloses its coated article as including a substrate 110 (i.e., a plastic body having a hardness h3) and a coating layer 120 having at least two separate layers (i.e., the first stabilizing film layer has at least a hardness h1 and a hardness h2) (see above discussion). As best understood, the optical coating layer is provided to improve the hardness of the resulting coated article (i.e., implying h1>h3 and h2>h3) (Hart: para. [0009]). Hart further teaches that the individual layers of its coating layer have varying hardnesses (i.e., the claim does not specify which layers have hardness h1 and h2, so it can be concluded that there exists at least two layers, such that h1>h2, and hence, the condition h1>h2>h3 is met). As best understood, the layers corresponding to h1 and h2 may or may not have undergone a hardening treatment (i.e., as surface treatments are disclosed by Hart as optional) (Hart: para. [0059] and [0064]-[0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a hardness h1 having undergone a hardening treatment, and a hardness h2 which has not undergone a hardening treatment, as h1 is greater than h2.
With regards to claim 13, although Hart does not disclose a specific Moh’s hardness for h1, Hart teaches that its layer should exhibit high hardness values in order to provide improved scratch resistance (Hart: para. [0059]). As best understood, hardness, regardless of measure (such as by Moh’s hardness) would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to increase and/or optimize, in order to improve the scratch resistance of the coated article of Hart (Hart: para. [0059]).
With regards to claim 14, Hart depicts a maximum thickness of its optical coating 120 (i.e., first stabilizing film layer) as being less than a maximum thickness of the substrate 110 (i.e., plastic body) (Hart: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 15, Hart further discloses the thickness of the optical coating 120 (i.e., as best understood a maximum thickness of the first stabilizing layer) is greater than or equal to 1 micron or greater (i.e., 0.001 mm or greater) (Hart: para. [0052]). This range overlaps the claimed range of about 0.1 mm to about 0.4 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 18, Hart discloses its cover plate as applied to the display portion of a smartphone (i.e., a display device comprising a cover plate according to the present claims disposed on a light output side of a display screen of the display device) (Hart: Fig. 18A-18B).
With regards to claim 19, it is noted that the claim does not specify the location of the first and second trajectories, and both an inner curved surface and an outer curved surface (which is present in the structure of Hart and Hu) has multiple trajectories (see above discussion). It is submitted that there exist at least two trajectories which are partially tangent to the inner and outer curved surfaces of the structure of Hart and Hu, such that the two trajectories intersect (i.e., cross) (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections and the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has fixed the grammatical issues in claims 1, 4, and 5, and Applicant has also amended claim 1 to recite “at least one first stabilizing film layer” (i.e., the phrase “the first stabilizing film layer” has been removed). Therefore, the claim objections and grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Hart. Hart alone does not disclose claim 1 as amended. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Hart have been withdrawn. However, the claims as amended are still obvious over the combination over Hart and Hu, and therefore, claims 1-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hart in view of Hu.
Applicant’s arguments which remain pertinent to the combination of Hart and Hu (in particular, the totality of Applicant’s arguments appear relevant) have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant points to Figure 1 of Hart, and argues that the coated article has a uniform thickness in the planar portion and has a thickness gradually decreasing in a non-planar portion, and therefore, Hart fails to disclose a thickness of the cover plate gradually decreasing from a center of the central region. This argument is not found persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The planar portion (or central region) of Hart still has an edge overlapping a non-planar portion (i.e., edge region), which is at a center of a lateral dimension, but not a center of a longitudinal direction (i.e., still a center), and at this center, the thickness is gradually decreasing. In the interest of compact prosecution, it is further noted that, technically, every point of the central region could be considered “a center” as the central region defines the center of the coated article. In yet another alternative, “a center” could reference an entire plane defined as the top-most surface of the central region (i.e., the center need not be a specific point).
Applicant argues that Hu cannot cure this deficiency of Hart. This argument is not found persuasive as Hu is not required to cure the alleged deficiency (i.e., as Hart discloses the gradually decreasing thickness as required).
Applicant argues that Hart and Hu do not recite the first and second trajectories of new claim 19, and Hart illustrates only an outer surface being curved, while Hu does not disclose or teach a trajectory which crosses as required. These arguments are not found persuasive as, technically, the rejection is over the combination of Hart and Hu (i.e., the arguments are directed to the overall articles of Hart and Hu individually, and not the combination of the cover plate of Hart with the shape taught by Hu for the plastic body and at least one first stabilizing film layer, which are submitted to meet this limitation). However, the arguments are also not persuasive as the curved surfaces of Hart and Hu can each be subdivided into having multiple trajectories (i.e., which intersect).
Conclusion
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights