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 .
The amendment filed 4/29/26 has been considered and entered. Claim 13 has been added. Claims 9-12 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 13 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 4/29/26, the 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior 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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is confusing. The claim recites the “second blocking layer is narrower than the first blocking layer such that opposite sides of the first light blocking layer protrude beyond opposite sides of the second light blocking layer” is unclear and confusing. This would infer that the second light blocking layer is applied on top of the first light blocking layer of which it is not but only “contacting” or abutting the first light blocking layer. The Examiner questions whether Applicant meant to recite the “third light blocking layer” instead of “the second light blocking layer”? Claims 6 and 7 as well as Figs. 3,16 and 17). Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) in combination with WO 2018/025299 and Inoue et al. (8,151,704).
Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches a coated cover substrates and electronic devices including the same. Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) depicts a display device and a protective coating (claimed blocking layer) disposed on at least a portion of the non-display area of the front cover substrate (abstract and Figs. 6A-8D). Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches a first top area and second side areas whereby the protective coating is applied to both the first and second areas and are partially contacted, i.e. abutting one another [0044]. Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches the protective layer being formed on the cover substrate by several coating processes [0056].
Inoue et al. (10,678,081) teaches a cover glass and display device having a chamfered front-side part and a coating (18) being applied to the surface (12d) and the chamfered surface (13a) (abstract and Figs. 2 and 3). The coating (18) on the surface (12a) is partially contacting the coating of the chamfered surface (13a). The antireflection film (18) (claimed blocking layer) is formed on the surface 12a and 13a (col. 4, lines 14-23 and col. 5, lines 60-67).
Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) fails to teach a first pad for the first blocking layer and a second pad for the second blocking layer to transfer the first and second blocking layers to the substrate followed by drying.
WO 2018/025299 teaches transfer ink printing using a transfer blanket (claimed pad) on a cover member for a display unit such as a touch panel or smartphone comprised of a flat glass plate.
Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches after applying the printing ink to the surface of the object, drying and/or curing the printing ink (col. 9, lines 4-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) process of coating glass by pad printing as detailed by WO 2018/025299 and Inoue et al. (8,151,704)with the expectation of applying the coating with precise precision on the object to be coated.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, with regards to a first and second pad, the claims are not limited to the first and second pads to be separate and/or different and hence can be the same or similar pad which would meet the claimed limitation of a first and second pad. Same reasoning for the first and second light blocking inks.
Regarding claim 5, Inoue et al. (8,151,704) is silent with respect to the claimed temperatures of drying, however, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art to have selected the claimed drying temperatures as the drying temperatures would be a matter of design choice based upon the coating material and amounts applied absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 6, the claims recite forming a third light blocking layer which is recessed inward from both ends. Both Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10,678,081) teach forming multiple layers and the Examiner takes the position that the layer length/width would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 7, as both Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) both teach forming layer and Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches using pad printing and drying. The limitation of the third layer being applied after the first layer would be inherent as the third layer is applied to the first layer and hence the first layer would have to be applied previously.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites forming the second layer prior to forming the first layer as opposed to forming in the opposite order. The Examiner takes the position that the order of the first and second layers would be a matter of design choice to produce
Similar results absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 13, the second blocking layer being narrower than the first blocking layer would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof. Furthermore, the Examiner takes the position that the layer length/width would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3,5-8 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) both teach coating cover glass plate by different coating processes such as CVD, PVD and sputtering and one would not utilize transfer pad printing as evidenced by Inoue et al. (8,151,704).
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed above, WO 2018/025299 teaches it is well known to utilize transfer pad printing for coating cover glass to provide a coating on both flat and curved surfaces and Inoue et al. (8,151,704) teaches generally drying after printing ink to form the layer. Hence one skilled i the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving similar success utilizing transfer pad printing in forming cover glass coatings such as those taught in Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) with the application being specific for applying the coating directly to the desired area without having to utilize a mask or another pretreatment step.
Applicant argued Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) or Inoue et al. (10/678,081) fails to tach a first area and a second area not parallel to the first area to be coated.
The Examiner disagrees. As detailed above, Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) depicts a display device and a protective coating (claimed blocking layer) disposed on at least a portion of the non-display area of the front cover substrate (abstract and Figs. 6A-8D). Bookbinder et al. (2020/0189970) teaches a first top area and second side areas whereby the protective coating is applied to both the first and second areas and are partially contacted, i.e. abutting one another [0044]. Inoue et al. (10,678,081) teaches a cover glass and display device having a chamfered front-side part and a coating (18) being applied to the surface (12d) and the chamfered surface (13a) (abstract and Figs. 2 and 3). The coating (18) on the surface (12a) is partially contacting the coating of the chamfered surface (13a). Therefore, the spatial relationship of the first area and the second are not being parallel are inferred by the references as they have flat and curved surfaces which would make the second surface “not parallel” to the first.
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights