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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 29th, 2026, has been entered.
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 6 and 8-9 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.
Claim 6 recites “the inner surface of the cover plate mating with a mating member,” but there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites an inner surface, but does not specifically recite an inner surface of the cover plate mating with a mating member. It is unclear if the claim is attempting to recite a new, separate inner surface (i.e., an inner surface of the cover plate, which mate with the mating member), or instead, further limit the inner surface of present claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to any inner surface.
Claims 8-9 are rejected due to dependence on indefinite claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “the first direction”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is possible Applicant is attempting to refer to “the first trajectory”, but it Is not clear from the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 8 will be interpreted as specifying a first direction.
Claim 9 is rejected due to dependence on indefinite claim 8.
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, 3-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al (US2020/0310000A1) 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). In addition, due to the existence of two separate curvatures, it is possible to draw first and second trajectories, such that a first trajectory along an inner curved surface of the cover plate crosses with a second trajectory along which an outer curved surface of the cover plate is curved (Hart: Fig. 1). This relationship holds for any curved surface (i.e., as an infinite number of trajectories tangent to the curved surface may be drawn).
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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections and the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has fixed the issue of failure to further limit by deleting claim 2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2, as best understood, are moot (i.e., although Applicant provides arguments in support of claim 2, it is noted that, ultimately, claim 2 has been deleted). In addition, it is noted that the plastic body having a thickness gradually decreasing from the central region to edge region, and at lest one first stabilizing film layer having a uniform thickness, further limits past present claim 1, as present claim 1 only requires one of the plastic body or first stabilizing film layer to have a gradually decreasing thickness. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn. However, the present amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 9-11, Applicant provides annotated figures of the present specification, and argues that a center of a central region cannot be located at the edge of the central region. Applicant argues that it is improper to interpret the center located at an edge of the central region. Applicant points to several centers of a central region according to both Hart and the claimed drawings. Applicant argues that, as noted in the annotated figures, Hart instead discloses and/or teaches a gradually decreasing thickness from an edge of a central region. Ultimately, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims, and in particular, the central region need not be interpreted exactly as defined in the arguments. The present arguments admit the claimed central region is located “with a certain area”, meaning, that the location, shape, and size of the central region are not defined in the present claim. The curved edges of the structure of Hart may be considered to include both a central region, and a peripheral region. So long as there exists some first region (called a central region) which is next to and bordering a second region (called an edge region), such that a thickness gradually decreases from a center of the central region to the edge region (which is met because both of the central region and edge region form a part of a same curve), the claim is met. The claimed central region need not be located at the center of the cover plate.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Hart fails to teach a first trajectory along which an inner curved surface of the cover plate is curved crossing a second trajectory along which an outer curved surface of the cover plate is curved. Applicant provides an annotated version of Figure 1 of the present drawings and Figures 1-3 in support. Applicant argues that the inner and outer surfaces are not curved in a longitudinal direction, while the inner surface and the outer surface are curved in a lateral direction, and therefore, intersecting trajectories as claimed do not result. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The existence of first and second trajectories which extend along inner and outer surfaces of the cover plate is not necessarily indicative of a longitudinal curve and a lateral curve. The bottom and top surfaces (i.e., inner curved surface and outer curved surface) of Hart can include tangent lines (i.e., trajectories along at least one point of the inner curved surface and outer curved surface, respectively) which interest. In other words, the trajectories, as best understood, can be taken as trajectories indicating instantaneous paths of curvature.
Conclusion
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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights