DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I, clams 1-12, in the reply filed on 01 April 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01 April 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin et al. (US 2015/0322270, previously cited).
Claim 1: Amin teaches articles with multi-layer anti-reflective coatings (paragraph 0002), such as cover articles used to protect critical devices within electronic products to provide a user interface etc. (i.e. an electronic device comprising a housing covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the electronic device is encompassed by this teaching) (paragraph 0003). The substrate can be glass such as soda-lime glass, alkali aluminosilicate glass, alkali borosilicate glass etc. (paragraph 0014), and may be substantially optically clear, transparent and free from light scattering (paragraph 0098). An anti-reflective coating is disposed on the substrate (paragraph 0058), which may include a plurality of layers (paragraph 0116). The anti-reflective coating may include a period of two or more layers characterized as having different refractive indices from each other (paragraph 0118) (i.e. this corresponds to the limitation of a multilayer structure formed on a surface of the transparent substrate and comprising a plurality of layers stacked such that respective adjacent layers have different refractive indexes). The article may include one or more additional coatings disposed on the anti-reflective coating (paragraph 0131). The additional coating may include a scratch resistant coating, which may utilize a material such as Al2O3 (i.e. an aluminum oxide layer formed on the multilayer structure) (paragraph 0132).
Claim 5: Amin teaches the anti-reflective coating may include a plurality of periods such that the low refractive index layer and high refractive index layer alternate in sequence of L/H/L/H or H/L/H/L (paragraph 0119).
Claim 6: Amin teaches that suitable materials for use in a first low RI layer include SiO2 (paragraph 0124).
Claim 7: Amin teaches that suitable materials for use in a second high RI layer include TiO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, ZrO2, etc. (i.e. oxides of Ti, Nb, Ta, Zr, etc.) (paragraph 0124).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2020/027437, using US 2021/0286106 as an equivalent English translation).
Claim 1: Kim teaches an electronic device that includes a first glass plate attached to the housing and forming a portion of an external surface of the electronic device (paragraph 0006) (i.e. an electronic device comprising a housing covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the electronic device). At least a portion of the first face of the housing may be formed of a substantially transparent front plate such as a glass plate or polymer plate including various coating layers (paragraph 0021) (i.e. a transparent substrate). The glass plate of the front plate can be part of a curved glass and has a coating layer (paragraph 0041). The coating layer can include an anti-scratch coating and anti-reflection coating layer (paragraph 0047). The coating layer can include at least one or more high refractive layers and at least one or more low refractive layers that can have mutually different refractive indexes (paragraphs 0056 and 0089). First layers can be high refractive layers of high refractive indexes and second layers can be low refractive layers of refractive indexes lower than those of the first layers (paragraphs 0080 and 0089), which are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 as being in alternating arrangement (i.e. the plurality of layers are stacked such that respective adjacent layers have different refractive indexes). At least one of the first layers corresponding to the high refractive layers can be an anti-scratch layer and can be arranged in the uppermost layer of the plurality of coating layers (i.e. on the multilayer structure) (paragraph 0091). The high refractive layers (i.e. the anti-scratch layer) can include at least one of Al2O3 etc. (paragraph 0093).
Claim 2: Kim teaches an anti-scratch layer can be arranged in the uppermost layer of the plurality of coating layers (i.e. on the multilayer structure) (paragraph 0091). As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, the outer layers are curved such that they cover an upper surface and a side (surface) of the multilayer structure with the multilayer structure being stacked on an upper surface of the transparent substrate.
Claim 3: Kim shows in Figs. 8 and 9 where the coated substrate is curved at an end portion and in Fig. 3 where the curved edge portion covers a side surface portion of the electronic device. In Figs. 8 and 9, the aluminum oxide layer being one of the outer layers would thereby cover the edge portion of the housing.
Claim 5: Kim teaches that first layers can be high refractive layers of high refractive indexes and second layers can be low refractive layers of refractive indexes lower than those of the first layers (paragraphs 0080 and 0089), which are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 as being in alternating arrangement (i.e. the plurality of layers are stacked such that respective adjacent layers have different refractive indexes as a stack of alternating high refractive index and low refractive index layers).
Claim 6: Kim teaches either first high refractive layer or second low refractive layer can be first laminated (i.e. second layers as a first laminated layer is a clear option) (paragraph 0090) and suitable materials for the second low refractive layers include SiOx (i.e. SiO2 is a clear choice where x is 2 because this is the fully oxygenated state for silicon oxide) (paragraph 0093).
Claim 7: Kim teaches the high refractive layers (i.e. the second layer when a low refractive layer is laminated first) can include ZrO2 or TiO2, etc. (i.e. an oxide of Ti, Zr, etc.) (paragraph 0093).
Claim 10: Kim teaches an electronic device that includes a first glass plate attached to the housing and forming a portion of an external surface of the electronic device (paragraph 0006) (i.e. an electronic device comprising a housing covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the electronic device). At least a portion of the first face of the housing may be formed of a substantially transparent front plate such as a glass plate or polymer plate including various coating layers (paragraph 0021) (i.e. a transparent substrate). The glass plate of the front plate can be part of a curved glass and has a coating layer (paragraph 0041). Fig. 4A shows the curved housing cover as comprising an upper surface and ends (i.e. terminal ends). The coating layer can include an anti-scratch coating and anti-reflection coating layer (paragraph 0047). The coating layer can include at least one or more high refractive layers and at least one or more low refractive layers that can have mutually different refractive indexes (paragraphs 0056 and 0089). First layers can be high refractive layers of high refractive indexes and second layers can be low refractive layers of refractive indexes lower than those of the first layers (paragraphs 0080 and 0089), which are shown in Figs. 8 and 9 as being in alternating arrangement (i.e. the plurality of layers are stacked such that respective adjacent layers have different refractive indexes). At least one of the first layers corresponding to the high refractive layers can be an anti-scratch layer and can be arranged in the uppermost layer of the plurality of coating layers (i.e. on the multilayer structure) (paragraph 0091). The high refractive layers (i.e. the anti-scratch layer) can include at least one of Al2O3 etc. (paragraph 0093).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (US 2015/0322270, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 4: The teachings of Amin regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Amin does not specifically teach a thickness of an aluminum oxide layer. However, Amin teaches an additional coating may be a scratch resistant coating that may be made of Al2O3 (paragraph 0132) and that the additional coating of DLC may have a thickness in the range from about 5 nm to 20 nm (paragraph 0133) or the additional coating may be an easy-to-clean coating and have a thickness of 5 nm to 50 nm (paragraph 0131). It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable thickness for the scratch resistant coating of Al2O3, especially in view of the ranges taught for other possible materials of an additional coating (i.e. a range of 5-20 nm or 5-50 nm would be obvious to try).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/027437, using US 2021/0286106 as an equivalent English translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Amin et al. (US 2015/0322270, previously cited).
Claim 11: The teachings of Kim regarding claim 10 are outlined above. Kim teaches an electronic device (paragraph 0006) wherein a glass plate of the front plate can be part of a curved glass and has a coating layer (paragraph 0041). However, Kim does not teach the instantly claimed thickness of an aluminum oxide layer.
In a related field of endeavor, Amin teaches articles with multi-layer anti-reflective coatings (paragraph 0002), such as cover articles used to protect critical devices within electronic products to provide a user interface etc. (i.e. an electronic device comprising a housing covering at least a portion of an outer surface of the electronic device is encompassed by this teaching) (paragraph 0003). An anti-reflective coating is disposed on the substrate (paragraph 0058), which may include a plurality of layers (paragraph 0116). The anti-reflective coating may include a period of two or more layers characterized as having different refractive indices from each other (paragraph 0118) (i.e. this corresponds to the limitation of a multilayer structure formed on a surface of the transparent substrate and comprising a plurality of layers stacked such that respective adjacent layers have different refractive indexes). The article may include one or more additional coatings disposed on the anti-reflective coating (paragraph 0131). The additional coating may include a scratch resistant coating, which may utilize a material such as Al2O3 (i.e. an aluminum oxide layer formed on the multilayer structure) (paragraph 0132). Amin does not specifically teach a thickness of an aluminum oxide layer. However, Amin teaches an additional coating may be a scratch resistant coating that may be made of Al2O3 (paragraph 0132) and that the additional coating of DLC may have a thickness in the range from about 5 nm to 20 nm (paragraph 0133) or the additional coating may be an easy-to-clean coating and have a thickness of 5 nm to 50 nm (paragraph 0131). It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable thickness for the scratch resistant coating of Al2O3, especially in view of the ranges taught for other possible materials of an additional coating (i.e. a range of 5-20 nm or 5-50 nm would be obvious to try).
As Kim and Amin both teach a cover article for electronic devices having an anti-reflective coating of a plurality of alternating high and low refractive index layers, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing of Kim to include an additional coating of Al2O3 as a scratch resistant coating with a thickness of about 5-20 nm or 5-50 nm as disclosed by Amin as this is considered a conventionally known feature for providing scratch resistance for an anti-reflection coated housing of an electronic device (i.e. combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is the disclosure of Amin and of Kim as outlined above. However, neither of these references disclose a mixture of Ti oxide and La oxide in one layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights