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 and 3-20 are pending. Claim 2 is canceled.
Amendments to the claims, filed 21 July 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejections made of record in the previous Office action are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3, 5-8, 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 Smets et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0118568 A1) (Smets).
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 the aromatherapy scratch resistant layer includes a fragrance (paragraph [0012-0014]).
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 including a fragrance source and a shell surrounding the fragrance source.
However, Smets discloses benefit agent containing delivery particles comprising a core material and a wall material that at least partially surrounds the core material (paragraph [0005]), wherein said wall meets the claimed shell.
Smets further discloses that the benefit containing delivery particle encompasses perfume microcapsules (paragraph [0009]), wherein “perfume” reads on the claimed fragrance source.
Smets teaches that effective and efficient benefit agent delivery can be solved in an economical manner by employing the disclosed structure (paragraph [0017]).
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, by using the structure of Smets as the fragrance desired by Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been that the structure of Smets delivers the fragrance effectively, efficiently, and economically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Smets with Yu to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 6-7:
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.
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 claim 5:
Smets further discloses that useful wall materials include melamine (paragraph [0033]).
Smets further discloses that the benefit agent containing delivery particles are further coated with modified celluloses (paragraph [0067]).
Smets further discloses that the benefit agent containing delivery particles are combined with chitosan (paragraph [0069]).
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).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Smets as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmiedel et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0043209 A1) (Schmiedel).
Regarding instant claim 4:
Yu in view of Smets discloses the window comprising an encapsulated fragrance as cited in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Yu in view of Smets does not disclose a fragrance inclusive of at least one of those claimed.
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]).
Schmiedel further discloses that useful fragrances for the inventive capsules are inclusive of terpenes (paragraph [0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the terpenes of Schmiedel as the fragrance in the structure of Yu in view of Smets. The motivation for doing so would have been that said terpenes are art recognized fragrances in the preparation of a system that generates long-lasting fragrance through sustained release. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007). See MPEP §2143(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schmiedel with Yu in view of Smets to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 12:
Yu in view of Smets 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 Smets to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Smets 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 Smets discloses the protective sheet structure as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
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 Smets to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Claim 14 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 Saiki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0107807 A1) (Saiki).
Regarding instant claim 14:
Yu in view of Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets 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 Smets to obtain the invention as specified by the claim.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous prior art grounds of rejection are fully considered; however, said arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 09/21/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights