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 Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged.
New claim 21 depends from claim 1 and, therefore, also falls within elected Group I.
Applicant argues that new claims 22-32 correspond to elected Group I. This is not found persuasive because claims 22-28 are directed towards a plastic substrate with anti-smudge coating and, therefore, correspond to unelected Group II, and claims 29-32 are directed towards head worn device for a heads-up display and, therefore, correspond to unelected Group III. Therefore, claims 22-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0200947, hereafter Ngo ‘947) in view of Kitagishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0047484, hereafter Kitagishi ‘484).
Claim 1: Ngo ‘947 teaches a method comprising:
forming a substrate (103) having an adhesive polymer film (105) on a first surface (Fig. 1A, [0027], [0032]); and
forming a stack of coatings (109-117) on a portion of a second surface of the substrate (Fig. 1A), the stack of coatings including a hard coating (109), an antireflective coating (115), and an anti-smudge coating (117) (Fig. 1A, [0026], [0027]).
Ngo ‘947 further teaches that the method is for a display for an electronic device ([0002]).
With respect to claim 1, Ngo ‘947 does not explicitly teach that the adhesive polymer film is a molded film.
Kitagishi ‘484 teaches a method of making a display for an electronic device ([0001]) comprising forming an adhesive polymer film ([0020]). Kitagishi ‘484 teaches that forming the adhesive polymer film can comprise molding the adhesive film ([0105]). Kitagishi ‘484 teaches that using molding to form layers provides excellent productivity and good adhesive property between layers ([0099], [0101]). Both Kitagishi ‘484 and Ngo ‘947 teach methods of making a display for an electronic device (‘947, [0002]; ‘484, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive polymer film by molding as taught by Kitagishi ‘484 in the method taught by Ngo ‘947 because using molding to form layers provides excellent productivity and good adhesive property between layers, as taught by Kitagishi ‘484.
Claim 3: Ngo ‘947 teaches that forming the stack of coatings can include plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition ([0048], [0055], [0069]).
Claim 4: Ngo ‘947 teaches that forming the stack can comprise forming the hard coating in contact with the substrate (Fig. 1A).
Claim 5: Ngo ‘947 teaches that forming the stack can comprise forming the anti-reflective coating in contact with the hard coating (Fig. 1A).
Claim 6: Ngo ‘947 teaches that forming the stack can comprise forming the anti-smudge coating in contact with the anti-reflective coating (Fig. 1A).
Claim 7: Ngo ‘947 teaches that forming the stack can comprise forming multiple coatings in multiple deposition steps in a vacuum chamber ([0048], [0055], [0069], [0073]).
Claim(s) 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo ‘947 in view of Kitagishi et al. ‘484 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0239023, hereafter Iwata ‘023).
Claim 2: The modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 2, they do not explicitly teach that the forming the substrate comprises using an injection molding process.
Iwata ‘023 teaches a method of forming a display for an electronic device (abstract, [0002]) comprising forming an anti-smudge coating on a substrate ([0001]). Iwata ‘023 teaches that the substrate can be formed by injection molding ([0071]). Iwata ‘023 teaches that this allows the substrate to have non-flat surface shapes ([0071]). Both Iwata ‘023 teach methods of forming a display for an electronic device (‘947, [0002]; ‘023, abstract, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate by injection molding as taught by Iwata ‘023 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 because it allows the substrate to have non-flat surface shapes, as taught by Iwata ‘023.
Claim 21: The modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 21, they do not explicitly teach that forming the substrate includes using a form-in-mold process to produce the substrate and the molded film together.
Iwata ‘023 teaches a method of forming a display for an electronic device (abstract, [0002]) comprising forming an anti-smudge coating on a substrate ([0001]). Iwata ‘023 teaches that the substrate can be formed by form in molding process ([0071]). Iwata ‘023 teaches that this allows the substrate to have non-flat surface shapes ([0071]). Both Iwata ‘023 teach methods of forming a display for an electronic device (‘947, [0002]; ‘023, abstract, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the substrate by form in molding process as taught by Iwata ‘023 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 because it allows the substrate to have non-flat surface shapes, as taught by Iwata ‘023.
With respect to claim 21, the modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 do not explicitly teach that the method produces the substrate and the molded film together.
Kitagishi ‘484 teaches a method of making a display for an electronic device ([0001]) comprising forming an adhesive polymer film ([0020]). Kitagishi ‘484 teaches that multiple molded layers can be produced together ([0100], [0105]). Kitagishi ‘484 teaches that this provides excellent productivity and good adhesive property between the layers ([0099], [0101]). Both Kitagishi ‘484 and Ngo ‘947 teach methods of making a display for an electronic device (‘947, [0002]; ‘484, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produces the substrate and the molded film together in the method taught by the modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 because it provides excellent productivity and good adhesive property between the layers, as taught by Kitagishi ‘484.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo ‘947 in view of Kitagishi et al. ‘484 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ronen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0075194, hereafter Ronen ‘194).
Claim 8: The modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 8, they do not explicitly teach that forming the stack of coatings comprises masking a second portion of the second surface to expose the first portion of the second surface.
Ronen ‘194 teaches a method of making a display for an electronic device (abstract, [0067]) comprising forming a stack of coating layers on a surface of a substrate ([0074]). Ronen ‘194 teaches that forming the stack of coating layers can comprise forming a masking layer on a portion of the substrate to expose the portion of the substrate on which the stack is to be formed ([0074]). Ronen ‘194 teaches that this allows for selective application of the coatings ([0074]). Both Ronen ‘194 and Ngo ‘947 teach methods of making a display for an electronic device (‘947, [0002]; ‘194, abstract, [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of forming a masking layer on a portion of the substrate to expose the portion of the substrate on which the stack is to be formed taught by Ronen ‘194 to the step of forming the stack of coatings in the method taught by the modified teachings of Ngo ‘947 because it allows for selective application of the coatings, as taught by Ronen ‘194.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights