CTNF 18/462,467 CTNF 87937 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 , 3, 8-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2018/0179395, “Seo”) . Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches a window (see, e.g., [0004], wherein the various external optical layers for use in a display device so as to constitute a window) comprising a substrate layer (i.e., a base layer, [0127]), a hard coat layer on or over the substrate layer ([0006], [0126], corresponding to the claimed high refractive index layer) that comprises high refractive index inorganic particles (e.g., [0050], [0051], zirconium oxide or titanium dioxide particles, having a high refractive index) and base resin ([0045], [0046]), and further includes a low refractive index layer on or over the hard coat layer ([0006], [0019], [0071], [0090] – [0098]) and comprising a fluorine-containing silsesquioxane-based resin ([0071], [0077]). Regarding claim 3, Seo additionally teaches the silsesquioxane compound may contain an epoxy or (meth)acrylate group ([0079]). Regarding claim 8, Seo additionally teaches that the inorganic particles may comprise zirconium oxide particles ([0050], [0051]). Regarding claim 9, Seo additionally teaches that the inorganic particles may be included in an amount of from 3 to 10% by weight ([0059]). Regarding claims 10 and 11, Seo additionally teaches that the base resin for the hard coat layer (i.e., the high refractive index layer) may be a triacrylate compound (thus having three functional groups, [0044], [0046]). Regarding claim 12, Seo additionally teaches that the low refractive index layer need not contain inorganic particles (e.g., [0076]). Regarding claim 14, Seo teaches a display device ([0133], [0134] thus comprising a display panel, Fig. 1a, comprising, e.g., liquid crystal cell), comprising a window (see, e.g., [0004], see Fig. 1a, wherein the various external optical layers for use in a display device may constitute a window) comprising a base layer (substrate layer, [0127], disposed over the display panel, see Fig. 1a), a hard coat layer on or over the substrate layer ([0006], [0126], corresponding to the claimed high refractive index layer) that comprises high refractive index inorganic particles (e.g., [0050], [0051], zirconium oxide or titanium dioxide particles, having a high refractive index) and base resin ([0045], [0046]), and further includes a low refractive index layer on or over the hard coat layer ([0006], [0019], [0071], [0090] – [0098]) and comprising a fluorine-containing silsesquioxane-based resin ([0071], [0077]). Regarding claim 16, Seo additionally teaches the silsesquioxane compound may contain an epoxy or (meth)acrylate group ([0079]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2018/0179395, “Seo”) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0142127, “Park”) . Regarding claims 2, 4 and 5, while Seo teaches that the low refractive index layer may be made of a modified polysilsesquioxane ([0071]), Seo fails to teach that the silsesquioxane has the specific structure claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor of coating layers for use in display devices (e.g., [0003] – [0010]), Park teaches that a functionalized polysilsesquioxane is useful for its good combination of flexibility and abrasion resistance ([0007] – [0013]). The polysilsesquioxane of Park contains perfluoroalkyl constituents reading on those claimed (see, e.g., Park, [0011], [0056]). Further the polysilsesquioxane may be substituted with an acrylate group and an epoxy group (e.g., [0050] – [0052]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the polysilsesquioxane of Park for that of Seo for its good combination of flexibility and abrasion resistance ([0007] – [0013]). Regarding claim 6, modified Seo (Park) additionally teaches the polysilsesquioxane may be substituted with an acrylate group and an epoxy group (e.g., [0050] – [0052], [0024] – [0030]). Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, while Seo teaches that the low refractive index layer may be made of a modified polysilsesquioxane ([0071]), Seo fails to teach that the silsesquioxane has the specific structure claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor of coating layers for use in display devices (e.g., [0003] – [0010]), Park teaches that a functionalized polysilsesquioxane is useful for its good combination of flexibility and abrasion resistance ([0007] – [0013]). The polysilsesquioxane of Park contains perfluoroalkyl constituents reading on those claimed (see, e.g., Park, [0011], [0056]). Further the polysilsesquioxane may be substituted with an acrylate group and an epoxy group (e.g., [0050] – [0052]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have substituted the polysilsesquioxane of Park for that of Seo for its good combination of flexibility and abrasion resistance ([0007] – [0013]). Regarding claim 20, Seo fails to specifically teach the device is foldable along a folding axis, however such a configuration is known in the art. For example, Park teaches to apply such hard coating layers to foldable devices and that doing so is a useful functionality for a display device (e.g., [0095]) and it therefore would have been obvious to have applied folding functionality to the device in order to provide that functionality to an end-user (Park, [0013], [0069]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claim s 1 and 14 , above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0064518, “Ahn”) . Regarding claim 7, while Seo teaches that its antireflection layer operates under the principle of a high refractive index layer placed over a substrate but below a low refractive index layer ([0006]), Seo fails to teach the respective refractive indexes of the layers. However, in the same field of endeavor of antireflection layers ([0010]), Ahn teaches that it is known to provide a refractive index for a high refractive index layer on the order of from 1.6 to 2.6 and to provide a refractive index for a low refractive index layer on the order of from 1.38 to 1.45 ([0023]) and that doing so provides a suitable antireflection layer ([0012],[0023]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the refractive indexes of the high and low refractive index layers of Seo consistent with the teachings of Ahn in order to properly implement such an antireflection laminate (Ahn, [0012], [0023]). Regarding claim 13, Seo fails to teach an additional functional layer including a fluorine but such layers are well known in the art. For example, Ahn teaches to include antifouling layer that includes a fluorine component ([0026]) may be included on the low refractive index layer in order to improve scratch resistance and antifouling performance ([0132]) and thus in order to improve the antifouling performance of the laminate itself, such an inclusion would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing ([0132], [0026]). Regarding claim 19, while Seo teaches that its antireflection layer operates under the principle of a high refractive index layer placed over a substrate but below a low refractive index layer ([0006]), Seo fails to teach the respective refractive indexes of the layers. However, in the same field of endeavor of antireflection layers ([0010]), Ahn teaches that it is known to provide a refractive index for a high refractive index layer on the order of from 1.6 to 2.6 and to provide a refractive index for a low refractive index layer on the order of from 1.38 to 1.45 ([0023]) and that doing so provides a suitable antireflection layer ([0012],[0023]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adjusted the refractive indexes of the high and low refractive index layers of Seo consistent with the teachings of Ahn in order to properly implement such an antireflection laminate (Ahn, [0012], [0023]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/462,467 Page 2 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/462,467 Page 3 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/462,467 Page 4 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/462,467 Page 5 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/462,467 Page 6 Art Unit: 1782
