fDETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 03/29/2024, 06/25/2024, and 07/03/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 16, and 24 recite the broad recitation “maximum compressive stress”, and the claim also recites “of at least 600 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim limitation “of at least 600 MPa” is a minimum number. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, “a maximum compressive stress (CS) of at least 600 MPa” will be taken as “a maximum compressive stress (CS) of 600 MPa”.
Claim 1 states “wherein the interlayer comprises an adhesive and has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm”. The limitation is not clear if the interlayer has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm or the adhesive has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “wherein the interlayer comprises an adhesive and has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm” will be taken as “wherein an adhesive has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm”.
Claim 6 states “wherein the AR coating comprises a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm”. The limitation “from about” is unclear. For examination purposes, “from about” will be taken as “from”. For examination purposes, “wherein the AR coating comprises a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm” will be taken as “wherein the AR coating comprises a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from 75 nm to 175 nm”.
Claim 7 states “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm”. The limitation is not clear if the scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm” will be taken as “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from 300 nm to 3000 nm”.
Claim 9 states “the releasable adhesive layer is from about 10 μm to 500 μm, and wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6”. The limitation is not clear if the releasable adhesive layer is from about 10 μm to 500 μm, and wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “the releasable adhesive layer is from 10 μm to 500 μm, and wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from 1.2 to about 1.6”.
Claim 15 states “wherein the OCA layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 400 μm, the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from about 8 μm to about 200 μm, and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 100 μm”. The limitation is not clear if the OCA layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 400 μm, the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from about 8 μm to about 200 μm, and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 100 μm or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “wherein the OCA layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 400 μm, the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from about 8 μm to about 200 μm, and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 100 μm” will be taken as “wherein the OCA layer has a physical thickness from 1 μm to 400 μm, the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from 8 μm to 200 μm, and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from 1 μm to 100 μm”.
Claim 19 states “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm” and “an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater”. The limitation is not clear if the a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm and an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from 75 nm to about 175 nm” and “an indentation depth of 100 nm or greater”.
Claim 20 states “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm” and “an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater”. The limitation is not clear if the scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm and an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “a scratch resistant layer having a physical thickness from 300 nm to 3000 nm” and “an indentation depth of 100 nm or greater”.
Claim 24, line 17 states “the polymer-containing layer and the releasable adhesive layer is from about 10 μm to 500 μm, wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6”. The limitation is not clear if the polymer-containing layer and the releasable adhesive layer is from or about 10 μm to 500 μm, wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 or if a range around those values which can be included in the original range. For examination purposes, “the polymer-containing layer and the releasable adhesive layer is from 10 μm to 500 μm, wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from 1.2 to about 1.6”.
Claims 10-22 depend on Claim 9 and inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 applied reference has a common assignee and inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart et al., (hereafter Hart) (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Seo et al., (hereafter Seo) (US 11,674,061), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 1, Hart teaches a screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) configured to be attached to an optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) disposed on a glass-containing display (display article 100, Figure 1C; see also ¶[0019]) of an electronic device (exemplary device article incorporating any of the articles disclosed herein consistent with the articles 100 depicted in FIG. 1C) is shown in FIGS. 18A and 18B which are a consumer electronic device 1800, Figure 18A; see also ¶[0110]), the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) comprising: a glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprising an outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) and an inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C), wherein the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) is opposite from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C); an antireflective (AR) coating (60, Figure 1C) disposed on the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C); and an interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) disposed on the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C), wherein the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) is configured for attachment to the optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) disposed on the glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C) of the electronic device (1800, Figure 18A), wherein the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) has one or more refractive indices (refractive indices, ¶[0067], and each refractive index of the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) is from about 1.2 to about 1.6 (less than or equal to 1.8, ¶[0067]), and wherein an average photopic reflectance (photopic specular, ¶[0075]) of the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) which is attached to the optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) of the glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C) is less than 2% (less than 1%, ¶[0075]) for all incident angles from 0° to 30° (incident angle from 0° to 20°, ¶[0075]).
Hart fails to teach layers releasably attached and an adhesive and the adhesive has a physical thickness from 10 μm to 500 μm.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Seo teaches an adhesive tape that can be used on the display article.
Seo teaches layers releasably attached (200, Figure 1; see also column 3, lines 54-56); wherein the adhesive (100, Figure 1) and has a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm (10 μm to 80 μm, column 4, lines 4-5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart having the screen protector with the teachings of Seo having layers releasably attached and an adhesive with a physical thickness from about 10 μm to 500 μm for the purpose of having an adhesive tape that realizes natural breakage and release stability during a continuous process, column 4, lines 9-12.
With respect to Claim 2, Hart further teaches wherein each refractive index (refractive indices, ¶[0067]) of the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) is within 30% (30% of 1.51 is 0.453; refractive index for layers 62 and 64 are 1.40 to 1.55 for SiO2, ¶[0069], (well-known in the art)) of a refractive index of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C has a refractive index 1.51, ¶[0066]) or a refractive index of the optical coating (ETC coating (not shown), ¶[0095]).
With respect to Claim 4, Hart further teaches wherein the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprises a compressive stress region (50, Figure 1C) with a maximum compressive stress (CS) of 600 MPa (350 MPa, ¶[0092]) and defined from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) to a depth (52, Figure 1B).
With respect to Claim 5, Hart further teaches wherein the average photopic reflectance (photopic specular, ¶[0075]) of the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) which is releasably attached to the optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) of the glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C) is less than 1.2% (less than 1%, ¶[0075]) for all incident angles from 0° to 30° (20°, ¶[0075]).
With respect to Claim 6, Hart further teaches wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) comprises a scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070]) having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm (50 nm to 2000 nm, ¶[0070]), at least one high refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0070]), and at least one low refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0070]), wherein the scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070]) and each high RI layer (¶[0070]) comprises a silicon-containing nitride or oxynitride (Si3N4, SiNx and SiOxNy, ¶[0070]) and each low RI layer comprises a silicon-containing oxide (SiOxNy, ¶[0070]), wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) has a physical thickness from 250 nm to 450 nm (50-1000 nm, ¶[0047]), and wherein the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) exhibits a hardness of 8 GPa or greater (8 GPa or greater, ¶[0048]) as measured on the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test (¶[0048]) at an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater (indentation depth of about 50 nm or greater, ¶[0048]).
With respect to Claim 7, Hart further teaches wherein the AR coating comprises a scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070]) having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm (5 nm to about 3000 nm, ¶[0069]), at least one high refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0070]), and at least one low refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0070]), wherein the scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070]) and each high RI layer (¶[0070]) comprises a silicon-containing nitride (Si3N4, SiNx and SiOxNy, ¶[0070]) or oxynitride and each low RI layer (¶[0070]) comprises a silicon-containing oxide (Si3N4, ¶[0070]), wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) has a physical thickness from 750 nm to 3500 nm (50 nm to 2000 nm, ¶[0070]), and wherein the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) exhibits a hardness of 12 GPa or greater (8 GPa or greater, ¶[0082]) as measured on the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test (¶[0048]) at an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater (indentation depth of about 50 nm or greater, ¶[0048]).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Seo (US 11,674,061), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ahn et al., (hereafter Ahn) (US 11,845,842 B2), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 3, Hart teaches the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart) of claim 1, wherein the adhesive of the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C, of Hart) is configured for attachment to the optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) disposed on the glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C, of Hart).
Hart fails to teach an adhesive.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Seo teaches an adhesive tape that can be used on the display article.
Seo teaches an adhesive (100, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart having the display with the teachings of Seo having an adhesive for the purpose of having an adhesive tape that realizes natural breakage and release stability during a continuous process, column 4, lines 9-12.
Hart in view of Seo fail to teach wherein the adhesive exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm.
Hart in view of Seo teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches wherein the adhesive (column 11, lines 13-20) exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm (1.9685 gf/25mm, column 11, lines 13-20).
Examiner Calculation: (2 gf/inch) X (1 in/25.4 mm) X 25 mm ≈ 1.9685 gf/25mm
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Seo having the display with the teachings of Ahn having wherein the adhesive exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm for the purpose of being easily peeled off when used, column 11, lines 13-18.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Seo (US 11,674,061), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Iandoli (US 2006/0254707 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 8, Hart in view of Seo teach the screen protector of claim 1, further comprising: an anti-splinter (AS) film disposed between the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C, of Hart) and the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C, of Hart), the AS film in direct contact with the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C, of Hart) and the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C, of Hart) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C, of Hart).
Hart in view of Seo fail to teach an anti-splinter (AS) film.
Hart in view of Seo teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Iandoli teach an anti-splinter film to use used on the display.
Iandoli teaches an anti-splinter (AS) film (16, Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Seo having the display with the teachings of Iandoli having an anti-splinter (AS) film and modifying Hart to dispose the anti-splinter (AS) film between the interlayer and the glass-containing substrate and be in direct contact with the interlayer and the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate for the purpose of serving as a safety element to prevent glass splinters and/or particles from dispersing if the glass lens is broken, ¶[0008].
Claim 9-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Ahn (US 11,845,842 B2) and Dai et al., (hereafter Dai) (US 2013/0120846 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 9, Hart teaches a screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) comprising: a glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprising an outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) and an inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C), wherein the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) is opposite from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C); an antireflective (AR) coating (60, Figure 1C) disposed on the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C); and an interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) disposed on the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C),
Hart fails to teach wherein the interlayer comprises: an optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer disposed on the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate; a polymer-containing layer disposed on the OCA layer; and a releasable adhesive layer disposed on the polymer-containing layer, wherein a total physical thickness of the OCA layer, the polymer-containing layer and the releasable adhesive layer is from about 10 μm to 500 μm, and wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, and the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches an optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer (40, Figure 7; see also column 16, lines 56-67) disposed on the inner primary surface (inner surface of 30, Figure 7) of the glass-containing substrate (30, Figure 7); a polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) disposed on the OCA layer (40, Figure 7); and a releasable adhesive layer (50, Figure 7) disposed on the polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7), wherein a total physical thickness of the OCA layer (40, Figure 7), the polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) and the releasable adhesive layer (50, Figure 7) is from about 10 μm to 500 μm (10 μm to 500 μm, column 2, line 32, column 4, clines 65-67 and column 9, lines 8-10), and wherein each of the polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7), the OCA layer (40, Figure 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the OCA for the purpose of preventing a defect due to peeling between layers, column 16, lines 57-67.
Hart in view of Ahn fail to teach the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6.
Hart in view of Ahn teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Dai teaches an optical stack which can be used with the display.
Dai teaches the releasable adhesive layer (OCA 540, Figure 11A) has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 (1.45 or less, ¶[0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Ahn having the display with the teachings of Dai having the releasable adhesive layer has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 for the purpose of reducing diffuse reflection, ¶[0101].
With respect to Claim 10, Hart in view of Dai teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart) of claim 9, wherein the releasable adhesive layer exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm.
Hart in view of Dai fail to teach wherein the releasable adhesive layer exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm.
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches wherein the releasable adhesive layer (column 11, lines 13-20) exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm (1.9685 gf/25mm, column 11, lines 13-20).
Examiner Calculation: (2 gf/inch) X (1 in/25.4 mm) X 25 mm ≈ 1.9685 gf/25mm
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having wherein the adhesive exhibits a peel strength from 1 to 25 gf/25 mm for the purpose of being easily peeled off when used, column 11, lines 13-18.
With respect to Claim 11, Hart in view of Dai teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart) of claim 9.
Hart in view of Dai fail to teach wherein the releasable adhesive layer comprises a silicone.
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches a releasable adhesive layer (50, Figure 7) comprises a silicone (silicone-based component may be used as an adhesive component, column 13, lines 21-23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the releasable adhesive layer comprises a silicone for the purpose of no residue after long-term attachment, column 13, lines 24-26.
With respect to Claim 12, Hart in view of Dai teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9.
Hart in view of Dai fail to teach wherein the OCA layer exhibits a peel strength of greater than 500 gf/25 mm.
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches wherein the OCA layer (40, Figure 7) exhibits a peel strength of greater than 500 gf/25 mm (5000 gf/25mm, column 17, lines 25-27).
Examiner Calculation: (2 kgf/inch) X 1000 = 2000 gf;
2000 gf/cm X 2.5 cm = 5000 gf ≈ 5000 gf/25mm
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the OCA layer exhibits a peel strength of greater than 500 gf/25 mm for the purpose of being easily peeled off when used, column 17, lines 27-36.
With respect to Claim 13, Hart in view of Dai teach teaches the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9.
Hart in view of Dai teach fail to teach wherein the polymer-containing layer is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), amorphous fluoropolymers, a cyclo olefin polymer (COP), cellulose triacetate, polyurethanes, and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches a polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (PET, column 16, lines 60-65), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), amorphous fluoropolymers, a cyclo olefin polymer (COP), cellulose triacetate, polyurethanes, and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the polymer-containing layer is selected from the group above for the purpose of flexibility and transparency, column 1, lines 33-37.
With respect to Claim 14, Hart in view of Dai teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9.
Hart in view of Dai teach fail to teach wherein the polymer-containing layer is a cyclo olefin polymer (COP).
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches a polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) is a cyclo olefin polymer (COP) (COP, column 16, lines 60-67).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the polymer-containing layer is a cyclo olefin polymer (COP) for the purpose of flexibility and transparency, column 1, lines 33-37.
With respect to Claim 15, Hart in view of Dai teach teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9.
Hart in view of Dai teach fail to teach wherein the OCA layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 400 μm, the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from about 8 μm to about 200 μm, and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 100 μm.
Hart in view of Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches the OCA layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 400 μm (1- 30 μm, column 12, lines 24-25), the polymer-containing layer has a physical thickness from about 8 μm to about 200 μm (10-500 μm, column 4, lines 65-67), and the releasable adhesive layer has a physical thickness from about 1 μm to about 100 μm (1 μm, column 9, lines 8-10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Dai having the display with the teachings of Ahn having the physical thicknesses for the above layers for the purpose of stability and compactness.
With respect to Claim 16, Hart in view of Dai further teach wherein the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C, of Hart) comprises a compressive stress region (50, Figure 1C, of Hart) with a maximum compressive stress (CS) of 600 MPa (350 MPa, ¶[0092], of Hart) and defined from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C, of Hart) to a depth (52, Figure 1B, of Hart).
With respect to Claim 17, Hart in view of Dai further teach wherein an average photopic reflectance (photopic specular, ¶[0075]) of the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]), as releasably attached to an optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) disposed on a glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C) of an electronic device (1800, Figure 18A), is less than 2% (less than 1%, ¶[0075]) for all incident angles from 0° to 30 (incident angle from 0° to 20°, ¶[0075]).
With respect to Claim 18, Hart in view of Dai further teach wherein an average photopic reflectance (photopic specular, ¶[0075], of Hart) of the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart), as releasably attached to an optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095], of Hart) disposed on a glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C, of Hart) of an electronic device (1800, Figure 18A, of Hart), is less than 1.2% (less than 1%, ¶[0075], of Hart) for all incident angles from 0° to 30° (incident angle from 0° to 20°, ¶[0075], of Hart).
With respect to Claim 19 Hart in view of Dai further teach wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C, of Hart) comprises a scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070], of Hart) having a physical thickness from about 75 nm to about 175 nm, at least one high refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0070], of Hart), and at least one low refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0067], of Hart), wherein the scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070], of Hart) and each high RI layer (¶[0070]) comprises a silicon-containing nitride (Si3N4, SiNx and SiOxNy, ¶[0070], of Hart) or oxynitride and each low RI layer (¶[0070], of Hart) comprises a silicon-containing oxide (SiOxNy, ¶[0070], of Hart), wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C, of Hart) has a physical thickness from 250 nm to 450 nm (50-1000 nm, ¶[0047], of Hart), and wherein the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart) exhibits a hardness of 8 Gpa or greater (8 GPa or greater, ¶[0048], of Hart) as measured on the AR coating (60, Figure 1C, of Hart) by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test (¶[0048], of Hart) at an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater (indentation depth of about 50 nm or greater, ¶[0048], of Hart).
With respect to Claim 20, Hart in view of Dai further teach wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C, of Hart) comprises a scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070], of Hart) having a physical thickness from about 300 nm to about 3000 nm (5 nm to about 3000 nm, ¶[0069], of Hart), at least one high refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0067], of Hart), and at least one low refractive index (RI) layer (¶[0067], of Hart), wherein the scratch resistant layer (60 can be configured with a scratch resistant layer, ¶[0070], of Hart) and each high RI layer (¶[0070], of Hart) comprises a silicon-containing nitride (Si3N4, SiNx and SiOxNy, ¶[0070], of Hart) or oxynitride and each low RI layer comprises a silicon-containing oxide (SiOxNy, ¶[0070], of Hart), wherein the AR coating (60, Figure 1C, of Hart) has a physical thickness from 750 nm to 3500 nm (5 nm to about 3000 nm, ¶[0069], of Hart), and wherein the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101], of Hart) exhibits a hardness of 12 Gpa or greater (8 GPa or greater, ¶[0082], of Hart) as measured on the AR coating (60, Figure 1C) by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test (¶[0048], of Hart) at an indentation depth of about 100 nm or greater (indentation depth of about 50 nm or greater, ¶[0048], of Hart).
With respect to Claim 21, Hart in view of Ahn teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9, an optical coating ((ETC) coating (not shown), ¶[0095]) disposed on a glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C) of an electronic device (1800, Figure 18A).
Hart in view of Ahn fail to teach a releasable adhesive layer.
Hart in view of Ahn teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Dai teaches an optical stack which can be used on the display.
Dai teaches the releasable adhesive layer (OCA 540, Figure 11A) has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 (1.45 or less, ¶[0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Ahn having the display with the teachings of Dai having the releasable adhesive layer the purpose of reducing diffuse reflection, ¶[0101], and modifying Hart wherein the releasable adhesive layer is configured to be releasably attached to an optical coating disposed on a glass-containing display of an electronic device
With respect to Claim 24, Hart teaches an article comprising: an electronic device (exemplary device article incorporating any of the articles disclosed herein consistent with the articles 100 depicted in FIG. 1C) is shown in FIGS. 18A and 18B which are a consumer electronic device 1800, Figure 18A; see also ¶[0110]) comprising an antireflective (AR) coating (60, Figure 1C) disposed on a glass-containing display (100, Figure 1C); and a screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]), wherein the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) comprises: a glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprising an outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) and an inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C), wherein the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) is opposite from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C); an AR coating (60, Figure 1C) disposed on the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C); and an interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) disposed on the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C); wherein the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprises a compressive stress region (50, Figure 1C) with a maximum compressive stress (CS) of at least 600 MPa (350 MPa, ¶[0092]) and defined from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) to a depth (52, Figure 1B),
Hart fails to teach an optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer disposed on the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate; a polymer-containing layer disposed on the OCA layer; and a releasable adhesive layer disposed on the polymer-containing layer, wherein a total physical thickness of the OCA layer, the polymer-containing layer and the releasable adhesive layer is from about 10 μm to 500 μm.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Ahn teaches a window cover film that can be used with the display.
Ahn teaches an optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer (40, Figure 7; see also column 16, lines 56-67) disposed on the inner primary surface (inner surface of 30, Figure 7) of the glass-containing substrate (30, Figure 7); a polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) disposed on the OCA layer (40, Figure 7); and a releasable adhesive layer (50, Figure 7) disposed on the polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7), wherein a total physical thickness of the OCA layer (40, Figure 7), the polymer-containing layer (10, Figure 7) and the releasable adhesive layer (50, Figure 7) is from about 10 μm to 500 μm (10 μm to 500 μm, column 2, line 32, column 4, clines 65-67 and column 9, lines 8-10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart having the screen protector with the teachings of Ahn having the OCA layer and releasable adhesive layer and modifying Hart wherein the releasable adhesive layer is configured for releasable attachment to the AR coating disposed on the glass-containing display of the electronic device for the purpose of preventing a defect due to peeling between layers, column 16, lines 57-67
Hart in view of Ahn fail to teach the wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6.
Hart in view of Ahn teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Dai teaches an optical stack which can be used with the display.
Dai teaches the wherein each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 (1.45 or less, ¶[0071] and [0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Ahn having the display with the teachings of Dai having each of the polymer-containing layer, the OCA layer, has a refractive index from about 1.2 to about 1.6 for the purpose of reducing diffuse reflection, ¶[0101].
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Ahn (US 11,845,842 B2) and Dai (US 2013/0120846 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Iandoli (US 2006/0254707 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 22, Hart in view of Ahn and Dai teach the screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) of claim 9, further comprising: an anti-splinter (AS) film disposed between the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) and the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C), the AS film in direct contact with the interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C) and the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C).
Hart in view of Ahn and Dai fail to teach an anti-splinter (AS) film.
Hart in view of Ahn and Dai teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Iandoli teach an anti-splinter film to be used with the screen protector.
Iandoli teaches an anti-splinter (AS) film (16, Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Ahn and Dai having the screen protector with the teachings of Iandoli having an anti-splinter (AS) film and modifying Hart to dispose the anti-splinter (AS) film between the interlayer and the glass-containing substrate and be in direct contact with the interlayer and the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate for the purpose of serving as a safety element to prevent glass splinters and/or particles from dispersing if the glass lens is broken, ¶[0008].
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hart (US 2022/0011466 A1) in view of Iandoli (US 2006/0254707 A1), Park et al., (hereafter Park) (US 2019/0312090 A1) and Dai (US 2013/0120846 A1).
With respect to Claim 23, Hart teaches a screen protector (display cover, ¶[0101]) comprising: a glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C) comprising an outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) and an inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C), wherein the inner primary surface (12 and 14, Figure 1C) is opposite from the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C); an antireflective (AR) coating (60, Figure 1C) disposed on the outer primary surface (61, Figure 1C) of the glass-containing substrate (10, Figure 1C); an interlayer (62 and 64, Figure 1C).
Hart fails to teach an anti-splinter (AS) film.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display and Iandoli teach an anti-splinter film to use used on the display.
Iandoli teaches an anti-splinter (AS) film (16, Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart having the display with the teachings of Iandoli having an anti-splinter (AS) film and modifying Hart having the an anti-splinter disposed on the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate and the interlayer for the purpose of serving as a safety element to prevent glass splinters and/or particles from dispersing if the glass lens is broken, ¶[0008].
Hart in view of Iandoli fail to teach a first optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer disposed on the inner primary surface of the glass-containing substrate; and a first polymer-containing layer disposed on the first OCA layer; a second OCA layer disposed on the first polymer-containing layer; a second polymer-containing layer disposed on the second OCA layer; and an adhesive layer disposed on the second polymer-containing layer.
Hart teaches a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Park teaches electronic device with a bendable display.
Park teaches a first optically clear adhesive (OCA) layer (421, Figure 4) disposed on the inner primary surface (inner surface of 410, Figure 4) of the glass-containing substrate (410, Figure 4); and a first polymer-containing layer (461, Figure 4) disposed on the first OCA layer (421, Figure 4); a second OCA layer (423, Figure 4) disposed on the first polymer-containing layer (461, Figure 4); a second polymer-containing layer (480, Figure 4) disposed on the second OCA layer (423, Figure 4); and an adhesive layer (471, Figure 4) disposed on the second polymer-containing layer (480, Figure 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Iandoli having the display with the teachings of Park having the additional OCA and polymer layers for the purpose of protecting components contained in the housing from dust, water, or any other foreign matter, ¶[0061].
Hart in view of Iandoli and Park fail to teach a releasable adhesive layer.
Hart in view of Iandoli and Park teach a screen protector disposed on a glass-containing display with adhesive and Dai teaches an optical stack which can be used with the display.
Dai teaches the releasable adhesive layer (OCA 540, Figure 11A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hart in view of Iandoli and Park having the display with the teachings of Dai having the releasable adhesive layer for the purpose of reducing diffuse reflection, ¶[0101].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights