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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (JP 2013-107382, of record).
Yoshida is directed to an assembly (claimed cover lens film) comprising a base film (claimed substrate) having a thickness between 50 μm and 1000 μm, a first hard coat layer (claimed first layer) having a thickness between 1μm and 30 μm and formed by a gravure printing method (wet deposition method), an anchor coat layer having a thickness between 0.5 μm and 30 μm and deposited on said first layer (claimed adhesion promotion layer), and a second hard coat layer (claimed second layer) having a thickness between 100 nm and 2,000 nm (0.1 μm-2 μm) and formed by chemical vapor deposition (dry deposition method).
In such an instance, the combination of the first hard coat layer, the anchor coat layer, and the second hard coat layer corresponds with the claimed multi-layer hardcoat. Thus, an overall thickness of the multi-layer hardcoat is between 1.6 μm and 62 μm and such a range substantially encompasses the claimed range between 1 μm and 30 μm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a specific combination of thickness values in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Lastly, regarding claim 1 (and claims 5 and 6), while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed flexibility, it appears that the assembly of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed flexibility would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the assembly of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed change in haze, it appears that the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed change in haze would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 4, while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed pencil hardness, it appears that the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed pencil hardness would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Additionally, the thickness values of respective hard coat layers mimic those of the claimed invention. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claims 7 and 8, given that the first and second layers of Yoshida have dimensions that mimic those of the claimed invention and are formed with materials that mimic those of the claimed invention, it reasons that the claimed properties would be present in the assembly of Yoshida.
4. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Yamaya (US 2007/0243394) and/or Suzuki (US 2010/0328605).
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a first hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed first layer) formed of a UV curable resin, such as urethane acrylate. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the inclusion of an anti-smudge layer.
It is extremely well known and conventional, though, to include an anti-smudge layer in optical assemblies in general in order to provide a smudge proof property, as shown for example by Yamaya (Paragraph 3) and/or Suzuki (Paragraph 85). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional anti-smudge layer in the assembly of Yoshida for the benefits detailed above.
5. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Matsushita (US 2020/0243798).
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a first hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed first layer) formed of a UV curable resin, such as urethane acrylate. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the nano-indentation hardness of said first hard coat layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those that are associated with common hard coat layers, as shown for example by Matsushita (Paragraph 94). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the first hard coat layer of Yoshida with conventional properties and such is consistent with that required by the claims.
6. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Ekinaka (WO 2017/051914).
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a second hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed second layer) formed of silicon oxide. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the nano-indentation hardness of said second hard coat layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those that are associated with common layers formed of silicon oxide, as shown for example by Ekinaka (Paragraphs 44-47). More particularly, Ekinaka teaches a silicon oxide layer having a nano-indentation hardness of 3.0 GPa or more and provided to obtain superior abrasion resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use hardness values for the silicon oxide layer of Yoshida that are consistent with those used in similar silicon oxide layers designed to provide abrasion resistance, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of hardness values.
7. Claim(s) 11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in the previous paragraph and further in view of Tomomatsu (US 2017/0095993).
Yoshida is directed to an assembly (claimed cover lens film) comprising a base film (claimed substrate) having a thickness between 50 μm and 1000 μm, a first hard coat layer (claimed first layer) having a thickness between 1μm and 30 μm and formed by a gravure printing method (wet deposition method), an anchor coat layer having a thickness between 0.5 μm and 30 μm and deposited on said first layer (claimed adhesion promotion layer), and a second hard coat layer (claimed second layer) having a thickness between 100 nm and 2,000 nm (0.1 μm-2 μm) and formed by chemical vapor deposition (dry deposition method).
In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent with respect to the inclusion of an adhesive between said substrate and said first layer.
Tomomatsu is similarly directed to an assembly comprising hard coat layers. More particularly, Tomomatsu recognizes the inclusion of an adhesion layer or anchor layer between a base substrate and a hard coat layer (corresponds with first layer of Yoshida) to promote adhesion between layers (Paragraph 132). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional adhesive layer between the base substrate and the hard coat layers of Yoshida for the benefits detailed above.
Lastly, regarding claim 11 (and claims 17 and 18), while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed flexibility, it appears that the assembly of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed flexibility would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the assembly of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claims 13 and 14, given that the first and second layers of Yoshida have dimensions that mimic those of the claimed invention and are formed with materials that mimic those of the claimed invention, it reasons that the claimed properties would be present in the assembly of Yoshida.
With respect to claim 15, while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed change in haze, it appears that the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed change in haze would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
As to claim 16, while Yoshida fails to expressly teach the claimed pencil hardness, it appears that the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida is substantially the same in terms of materials and dimensions and as such, it reasons that the claimed pencil hardness would be present in the assembly of Yoshida. It is particularly noted that the first hard coat layer is a UV curable resin, such as a urethane acrylate resin, and the second hard coat layer is an organic silicon (e.g. silicon oxide film) and such materials mimic those detailed by Applicant. Additionally, the thickness values of respective hard coat layers mimic those of the claimed invention. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the multilayer hardcoat of Yoshida with properties in accordance to the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Tomomatsu as applied in claim 11 above and further in view of Yamaya and/or Suzuki.
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a first hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed first layer) formed of a UV curable resin, such as urethane acrylate. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the inclusion of an anti-smudge layer.
It is extremely well known and conventional, though, to include an anti-smudge layer in optical assemblies in general in order to provide a smudge proof property, as shown for example by Yamaya (Paragraph 3) and/or Suzuki (Paragraph 85). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional anti-smudge layer in the assembly of Yoshida for the benefits detailed above.
9. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in claim 11 above and further in view of Matsushita.
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a first hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed first layer) formed of a UV curable resin, such as urethane acrylate. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the nano-indentation hardness of said first hard coat layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those that are associated with common hard coat layers, as shown for example by Matsushita (Paragraph 94). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the first hard coat layer of Yoshida with conventional properties and such is consistent with that required by the claims.
10. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied in claim 11 above and further in view of Ekinaka.
As detailed above, Yoshida teaches an assembly (cover lens film) including a second hard coat layer (corresponds with claimed second layer) formed of silicon oxide. In such an instance, though, Yoshida is silent as to the nano-indentation hardness of said second hard coat layer.
In any event, the claimed hardness values are consistent with those that are associated with common layers formed of silicon oxide, as shown for example by Ekinaka (Paragraphs 44-47). More particularly, Ekinaka teaches a silicon oxide layer having a nano-indentation hardness of 3.0 GPa or more and provided to obtain superior abrasion resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use hardness values for the silicon oxide layer of Yoshida that are consistent with those used in similar silicon oxide layers designed to provide abrasion resistance, there being no conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed range of hardness values.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 February 24, 2026