DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 18/448,826 filed 11 August 2023, which claims priority to KR10-2022-0128398 filed 7 October 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-16 in the reply filed on 29 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 29 March 2026.
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 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN204183985U with citations taken from the provided machine translation) (Yu) in view of Schmiedel et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0043209 A1) (Schmiedel).
Regarding instant claim 1:
Yu discloses a scratch resistant protection film including a substrate, an aromatherapy scratch resistant-layer disposed on the substrate layer, and a protective film disposed on the aromatherapy scratch-resistant layer (paragraph [0009]).
Said “substrate” reads on the claimed base layer.
Said “aromatherapy scratch-resistant layer” reads on the claimed fragrance-emitting layer.
Yu further discloses that art-recognized, desirable properties afforded by screen protectors are inclusive of fingerprint resistance (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a protective film imbued with the art-recognized fingerprint resistance, which reads on the claimed “anti-fingerprint layer”.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the fragrance-emitting layer includes a plurality of fragrance-emitting capsules.
However, Schmiedel discloses polymer capsules suitable for encapsulating fragrant components, wherein said capsules provide a system that generates long-lasting fragrance without the fragrance being unpleasantly intense immediately after use of the product and having sustained release (paragraphs [0011-0013]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the polymer capsules of Schmiedel in the aromatherapy layer of Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been that said polymer capsules provide a system that generates long-lasting fragrance without the fragrance being unpleasantly intense immediately after use of the product and has sustained release.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schmiedel with Yu to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claims 2-5:
Schmiedel further discloses that the polymer capsules comprise a matrix material inclusive of celluloses (paragraph [0014]).
Said “polymer capsules” read on the claimed shell.
Schmiedel further discloses that useful fragrances for the inventive capsules are inclusive of terpenes (paragraph [0017]).
Said terpene fragrances read on the claimed fragrance source.
As to the claimed intended pressure release effect and fragrance lifespan recited by claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the prior art encompasses an embodiment that is substantially identical to that of the claims that also seek similar properties (e.g., long-lasting and sustained release of a fragrance). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that such a substantially identical embodiment must have the same properties as the claimed composition (i.e., the claimed pressure release effect and fragrance lifespan. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding instant claims 3-7:
Yu further discloses that the protective film further comprises a fragrance-retaining layer disposed between the aromatherapy layer and the substrate layer, wherein said fragrance-retaining layer is composed of a mesh-like polyacrylate layer (paragraphs [0009-0011]).
Yu teaches that the fragrance retaining layer swells and absorbs the oil to prolong the fragrance emission time and improve the product’s performance and practical use value (paragraph [0018]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the polymer capsules of Schmiedel into the fragrance-retaining layer of Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been to prolong the fragrance emission time and improve the product’s performance and practical use value.
The combination of the fragrance-retaining layer and polymer capsules are construed to meet the capsules dispersed in a base resin that combines said capsules and the base layer as claimed.
Regarding instant claim 8:
Yu further discloses that the protective film comprises a second adhesive layer disposed between the aromatherapy layer and the protective film layer.
Said “second adhesive layer” reads on the claimed first bonding layer between the fragrance-emitting layer and the anti-fingerprint layer configured to bond both layers.
Regarding instant claim 16:
Yu further discloses that the aroma therapy layer has a thickness of 4-10 micron (paragraph [0017]), which overlaps the claims range, which is close to the claimed range of 1-3000 nm. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Schmiedel as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Yamasaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0157525 A1) (Yamasaki).
Regarding instant claim 9:
Yu discloses the structure comprising the second adhesive layer disposed between the aromatherapy layer and the protective film layer as cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Yu does not explicitly disclose that the adhesive layer includes silicon oxide or aluminum oxide.
However, Yamasaki discloses a polarizer protective film comprising an adhesive composition including fine particles (Claim 1).
Yamasaki further discloses that said fine particles are inclusive of silica and alumina (paragraph [0063]).
Yamasaki teaches that the inclusion of fine particles into the adhesive composition allows minute unevenness to be formed on the surface of the protective film, wherein the unevenness prevents the occurrence of defects such as wrinkles and marks during handling of the protective film (paragraph [0014]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the silica or alumina of Yamasaki into the adhesive layer of Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been to impart minute unevenness into the structure that prevents the occurrence of defects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yamasaki with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Schmiedel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kunai (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0220525 A1) (Kunai).
Regarding instant claims 10-11:
Yu in view of Schmiedel discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Yu further discloses that the protective film comprises a second adhesive layer disposed between the aromatherapy layer and the protective film layer.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the claimed anti-reflection layer.
However, Kunai discloses a protective film (paragraph [0022]).
Kunai further discloses that the protective film comprises optical layers inclusive of anti-reflection layers (paragraph [0080]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the anti-reflection layer of Kunai withing the structure of Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been that anti-reflection layers are art-recognized layers known for inclusion into protective films. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(A).
Further, it would have been obvious to incorporate the anti-reflection layer anywhere in the structure of Yu, which includes between the second adhesive layer and the aromatherapy layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kunai with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 12:
Yu in view of Schmiedel discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the claimed optical layer having surface irregularities.
However, Kunai discloses a protective film (paragraph [0022]).
Kunai further disclose that the protective film comprises optical layers inclusive of films having an antiglare function having irregularities on its surface (paragraph [0098]).
Before the effective filing date of the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to include the optical film having surface irregularities of Kunai within the structure of Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an antiglare character.
Further, it would have been obvious to incorporate the anti-reflection layer anywhere in the structure of Yu, which includes between the base layer and the fragrance emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kunai with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Schmiedel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoneyama et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0222910 A1) (Yoneyama).
Regarding instant claim 13:
Yu in view of Schmiedel discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Yu in view of Schmiedel does not explicitly disclose the refractive index of the structure.
However, Yoneyama discloses an optical film wherein the surface haze, internal haze, and total haze of a structure is dependent on the surface refraction values of its components, inclusive of those compounds having a refractive index of 1.45 to 1.7 (Title; paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art, to ensure that the structure of Yu in view of Schmiedel has an overall refractive index of 1.47 to 1.7 as this is an art recognized value for optical films having optimized haze.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoneyama with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Schmiedel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saiki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0107807 A1) (Saiki).
Regarding instant claim 14:
Yu in view of Schmiedel discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the surface roughness of the structure.
However, Saiki disclose a protective film having an outer surface with a surface roughness of at least 0.03 μm to prevent blocking and deterioration in optical characteristics caused by reflection (paragraph [0060]). It is noted that the surface roughness range of the claim falls within the range of Saiki; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to ensure that the structure of Yu has the surface roughness Saiki. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent blocking and the deterioration of optical characteristics caused by reflection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Saiki with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Schmiedel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0184676 A1) (Kamada).
Regarding instant claim 15:
Yu in view of Schmiedel discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Yu does not explicitly disclose the claimed light transmittance.
However, Kamada discloses surface protective film having a total light transmittance of 90% or more such that the visibility of a display is not deteriorated (paragraph [0091]).
The “total light transmittance” of Kamada is construed to include the wavelength range recited by the claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to ensure that the structure of Yu has the total light transmittance of described by Kamada. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the visibility of any display to which the structure of Yu is applied is not deteriorated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kamada with Yu in view of Schmiedel to obtain the invention as specified by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 04/16/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights