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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-16, and the following species, in the reply filed on 12/31/25 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
171
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 (non-elected first species because only one reactive group) and 17-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/25.
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 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.
If 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. 2018/0223127) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2019/0004214) in view of Takao (JP 43-01115, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-16, Cho teaches a display device that folds as in claim 16 (FIG. 2 and 3) and comprising a base layer (the window surface of the display device) with a laminate thereon ([0090]), wherein the laminate comprises a substrate ([0076], corresponding to the coating layer as in claims 8-9) with an anti-fingerprint layer directly thereon as an outermost layer (as in claims 9 and 15) with a thickness overlapping claim 6 ([0019]), with the anti fingerprint layer comprising a vinyl and trifluoropropyl functional polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane ([0058]-[0061], generic to the elected first species) and a fluorinated methacrylate compound ([0062]-[0065], generic to the second elected species), at amounts resulting in an overlapping ratio as in claim 12 ([0061], [0065]).
The above substrate (corresponding to the coating layer) is not disclosed as “coated” but this is an immaterial product by process limitation because it only relates to how the layer is formed. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
Cho does not disclose the particular optical properties as claimed, the particular fluorinated methacrylate compound as claimed, the claimed crosslinker, or the particular structure of the trifluoropropyl group.
However, Kim is also directed to a fluorinated coating for display devices ([0002]) comprising polymerizable POSS compounds, and teaches that mechanical properties may be improved via a multifunctional acrylate compound ([0060]-[0063]) such that it would have been obvious to have included such a compound as a crosslinker in Cho, as in claim 4, to improve mechanical properties.
Kim also discloses that a suitable type of fluorinate methacrylate compound overlaps the second elected species and claims 2 and 14, ([0087], when c is 4) in order to provide alkali resistance ([0065]-[0067]), and also discloses that when a trifluoropropyl group is included in such a composition (like the trifluoropropyl group in the POSS of Cho) it may have a linear structure with CF3 at the end ([0085]-[0086], when a is zero and b is 2), such that it would have been obvious to have used the fluoromethacrylate compound from Kim as the fluoromethacrylate compound called for in Cho because Kim teaches it provides alkali resistance and it would have been obvious to have used the trifluoropropyl group structure from Kim for the trifluoropropyl group in the POSS of Cho because Kim provides a more specific teaching regarding the structure of such a trifluoropropyl group that would be suitable in such a fluorinated coating (the particular location and structure of the trifluoropropyl group is also prima facie obvious based on the finite number of isomers of trifluoropropyl, see below).
See MPEP 2144.09 II. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Kim also discloses that such fluorinated siloxane/acrylate based coatings may be provided with a low refractive index to achieve low reflectance and high transmittance for better visibility, with the reflectance overlapping claim 11, ([0029], [0039]). The particular refractive index of claim 7 is not disclosed, but given that Kim seeks a “low” refractive index in order to provide the above high transmittance and low reflection, it would have been obvious to have adjusted the refractive index, including to values within claim 7, in order to optimize the transmittance and reflection properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to have provided the coating of Cho with a low refractive index and a low reflectance as taught by Kim in order to achieve higher transmittance and visibility for the display device.
Cho does not disclose the particular cage structure of the POSS, or the number of vinyl groups and trifluorpropyl groups as in the second elected species. However, Takao is also directed to fluorinated coating based on siloxane/acrylate coatings for display devices ([0011], [0132]) and discloses that the fluorinated POSS may have a cage structure (page 2, formula B1 of the JP document) with two or more polymerizable groups (e.g., vinyl), as in claim 5, in order to provide improved scratch resistance ([0061]-[0062]), such that it would have been obvious to have included more than one reactive (vinyl) group in the vinyl/trifluoropropyl POSS of Cho and to have used a cage structure for such a POSS in Cho, as taught by Takao, in order to provide improved scratch resistance. It would have further been obvious to have made the remaining R groups of the polysilsesquioxane cage POSS the trifluoropropyl groups already suggested in Cho because such fluorinated groups are known to contribute to the alkali resistant properties (see, e.g., [0069] of Kim) of the coating (i.e., the number of vinyl groups and the number of trifluoropropyl groups would have been obvious to adjust, based on optimizing the relative degree of scratch resistance from the vinyl groups and the degree of alkali resistant properties from the trifluoropropyl groups). The particular location of such vinyl and trifluoropropyl groups (amongst the 8 possible R groups locations on the cage structure) is likewise obvious based on the above isomer case-law.
Regarding claim 10, modified Cho does not disclose multiple sub-layers, however, the claim does not require any difference between the two sub-layers such that the claim encompasses an embodiment in which the two sub layers are compositionally identical and adjacent to each other which is not patentably distinct from a product with a single layer of such composition (apart from the process of forming the single layer in two steps, which is an immaterial product by process distinction). Thus, the single fluorinated layer of Cho (having both the first and second compounds as claimed, as explained above) renders obvious the two sub layers as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
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.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787