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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-5, drawn to a surface treatment composition comprising a first solvent having a dipole moment greater than or equal to 10x10-30 C·m and a second solvent having a dipole moment greater than 5x10-30 and less than 10x10-30 C·m and a boiling point of 50 to 150 degrees Celsius, classified in B32B2255/00.
II. Claims 6-19-, drawn to an optical assembly comprising an organic substrate having a surface treated by a surface treatment composition for the organic substrate, wherein the surface has a root mean square surface roughness of 10 to 1,000 nm and a maximum height surface roughness of 20 to 2,000 nm, classified in G02B1/10.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different claimed design as shown by the different limitations set forth in the claims of each group above and not requiring the features of each of the other groups. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the invention require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In a telephone voice message left by Wei Chung (reg. no. 43,325) on 27 March 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group II, claims 6-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are non-elected.
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/28/2024, 9/28/2024, and 9/12/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 December 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: structure of the hexa-functional polyurethane acrylate oligomer does not appear in the claims. For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to indicate the structure of the hexa-functional polyurethane acrylate oligomer P1 in paragraph [0057] of the present specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, once the above stated claim objections are corrected, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 9 and 17 are interpreted to claim the structure of the hexa-functional polyurethane acrylate oligomer P1 in paragraph [0057] of the present specification.
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.
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.
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 6-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2021/0388211) (hereafter Fan), in view of Jin et al. (CN 116444843) made of record in the IDS filed 9/12/2025 (hereafter Jin).
Regarding claim 6, Fan discloses an optical assembly (see at least the abstract, anti-glare film) comprising: an organic substrate (see at least paragraph [0032], where the substrate can be polycarbonate), wherein the surface has a root mean square surface roughness of 10 to 1,000 nm (see at least paragraph [0008]) and a maximum height surface roughness of 20 to 2,000 nm (see at least paragraph [0008]).
Fan does not specifically disclose that the substrate has a surface treated by a surface treatment composition for the organic substrate.
However, Jin teaches a polycarbonate hardening surface treatment (see at least the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical assembly of Fan to include the teachings of Jin so that the substrate has a surface treated by a surface treatment composition for the organic substrate for the purpose of improving the durability of the optical assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Fan also discloses a coating disposed on the surface (see at least paragraph [0029], anti-glare layer formed on the substrate).
Regarding claim 8, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Fan also discloses that the coating comprises a polyurethane acrylate oligomer having a functionality greater than or equal to six (see at least paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Fan also discloses that the coating further comprises an acrylate monomer having a functionality greater than or equal to three (see at least paragraph [0065], where pentaerythritol triacrylate is an acrylate monomer having a functionality of three) and a photoinitiator (see at least paragraphs [0065]-[0066], where the coating includes an initiator and is UV cured).
Regarding claim 11, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fan also discloses that the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three comprises pentaerythritol tri(meth)acrylate (see at least paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Fan discloses a display panel (see at least paragraph [0002]), comprising: a panel body, and an optical assembly, the optical assembly being provided on a surface of the panel body (see at least paragraph [0004]), wherein the optical assembly comprises: an organic substrate close to the panel body (see at least paragraph [0032], where the substrate can be polycarbonate), the surface is on a side of the organic substrate away from the panel body, and the surface has a root mean square surface roughness of 10 to 1,000 nm (see at least paragraph [0008]) and a maximum height surface roughness of 20 to 2,000 nm (see at least paragraph [0008]).
Fan does not specifically disclose that the substrate has a surface treated by a surface treatment composition for the organic substrate.
However, Jin teaches a polycarbonate hardening surface treatment (see at least the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Fan to include the teachings of Jin so that the substrate has a surface treated by a surface treatment composition for the organic substrate for the purpose of improving the durability of the optical assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Fan also discloses a coating disposed on the surface (see at least paragraph [0029], anti-glare layer formed on the substrate).
Regarding claim 16, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Fan also discloses that the coating comprises a polyurethane acrylate oligomer having a functionality greater than or equal to six (see at least paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Fan also discloses that the coating further comprises an acrylate monomer having a functionality greater than or equal to three (see at least paragraph [0065], where pentaerythritol triacrylate is an acrylate monomer having a functionality of three) and a photoinitiator (see at least paragraphs [0065]-[0066], where the coating includes an initiator and is UV cured).
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2021/0388211) (hereafter Fan), in view of Jin et al. (CN 116444843) made of record in the IDS filed 9/12/2025 (hereafter Jin) as applied to claims 8 and/or 18 above, and further in view of Hase et al. (US 2018/0029289) (hereafter Hase).
Regarding claim 12, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fan as modified by Jin does not specifically disclose that the photoinitiator comprises one or more of 4-phenoxydichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyldichloroacetophenone, 4-tert-butyltrichloroacetophenone, diethoxyacetophenone, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenylpropan-1-one, 1-(4-isopropylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 1-(4-dodecylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropan-1-one, 4-(2-hydroxyethoxy)-phenyl(2-hydroxy-2-propyl) ketone, 1-hydroxycyclohexylphenyl ketone, benzoin, benzoin methyl ether, benzoin ethyl ether, benzyl dimethyl ketal, acylphosphine oxides, itanocene compounds, benzophenone, benzoylbenzoic acid, benzoylbenzoic acid methyl ether, 4-phenylbenzophenone, hydroxybenzophenone, 4-benzoyl-4’-methyldiphenyl sulfide, 3,3’-dimethyl-4-methoxybenzophenone, thioxanthone, 2-chlorothioxanthone, 2-methylthioxanthone, 2,4-dimethylthioxanthone, or isopropylthioxanthone.
However, Hase teaches a coating comprising polyurethane acrylate oligomer (see at least paragraph [0011]), an acrylate monomer (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0070]-[0074], and a photoinitiator, wherein the photoinitiator comprises benzoin methyl ether (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical assembly of Fan as modified by Jin to include the teachings of Hase so that the photoinitiator comprises benzoin methyl ether for the purpose of using a known photoinitiator to form a hardened coating film in order to obtain predictable results such as market availability.
Regarding claim 13, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Fan as modified by Jin does not specifically disclose that the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator.
However, Hase teaches a coating comprising polyurethane acrylate oligomer (see at least paragraph [0011]), an acrylate monomer (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0070]-[0074], and a photoinitiator (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0079]), wherein the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator (see at least paragraph [0011]-[0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical assembly of Fan as modified by Jin to include the teachings of Hase so that the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator for the purpose of optimizing the coating for hardness (see at least paragraph [0082] of Hase).
Regarding claim 19, Fan as modified by Jin discloses all of the limitations of claim 18.
Fan as modified by Jin does not specifically disclose that the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator.
However, Hase teaches a coating comprising polyurethane acrylate oligomer (see at least paragraph [0011]), an acrylate monomer (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0070]-[0074], and a photoinitiator (see at least paragraphs [0011] and [0079]), wherein the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator (see at least paragraph [0011]-[0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Fan as modified by Jin to include the teachings of Hase so that the coating comprises 60 to 100 parts by weight of the polyurethane acrylate oligomer having the functionality greater than or equal to six; 0 to 40 parts by weight of the acrylate monomer having the functionality greater than or equal to three; and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the photoinitiator for the purpose of optimizing the coating for hardness (see at least paragraph [0082] of Hase).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872