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) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki (US 20160357294 A1).
Re Claim 1, Ozeki discloses on Fig. 6, an optical member [Par 313] comprising: a support layer (Adhesive layer 41); and an optical functional layer (thick portion 17 and thin portion 13) formed on one surface of the support layer, wherein the optical functional layer comprises a groove (concave portion 7) comprising an inclined surface (side surface 9) [Par 174-175], the inclined surface is formed with at least one convex portion (See Fig. 6 wherein the top of side surface 9 is convex) extending from a flat portion of the optical functional layer (side surface 9 extends from front surface 18 of thick portion 17), and the inclined surface satisfies Equation 1: a≥b, where a is a width of the inclined surface formed with the convex portion and b is a height of the inclined surface formed with the convex portion (depth d in Fig. 6, is less than the width of side surface 9, “though the radius of curvature of the side surface 9 may vary depending on the position thereof, the radius of curvature is set to be not less than the depth d of the bottom 8 at every position.”, where the width of side surface 9 would be equivalent the radius of curvature of the concave portion of the inclined surface plus the small portion of the convex radius of curvature of side surface 9 and thus greater than depth d) [Par 175].
But Ozeki does not explicitly disclose wherein the radius has curvature of 1 mm or more,
However, Ozeki does teach, wherein the convex portion (top of side surface 9) is a curved surface having a radius of 0.1 mm to 2 mm (Radius of side surface 9 is 0.1 mm to 2 mm) [Par 175].
Note; MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided for a convex portion with radius greater than 1 mm.
Re Claim 2, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 1, and Ozeki further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the inclined surface (side surface 9) is further formed with a concave portion (bottom of side surface 9) connected to the convex portion (top of side surface 9).
Re Claim 3, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 2.
But Ozeki does not explicitly disclose, wherein the concave portion is a curved surface having a radius of curvature of 1 mm or more.
However, Ozeki does teach, wherein the concave portion (bottom of side surface 9) is a curved surface having a radius of 0.1 mm to 2 mm (Radius of side surface 9 is 0.1 mm to 2 mm) [Par 175].
Note; MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided for a concave portion with radius greater than 1 mm.
Re Claim 4, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 1, and Ozeki further discloses, wherein a ratio of a to b (a/b) ranges from 1 to 100,000 (depth d in Fig. 6, is less than the width of side surface 9, “though the radius of curvature of the side surface 9 may vary depending on the position thereof, the radius of curvature is set to be not less than the depth d of the bottom 8 at every position.”, where the width of side surface 9 would be equivalent the radius of curvature of the concave portion of the inclined surface plus the small portion of the convex radius of curvature of side surface 9 and thus greater than depth d, so the ratio ) [Par 175]
Re Claim 5, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 2, and Ozeki further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the groove (Concave portion 7) further comprises a first surface (front surface 14) connected to the concave portion (bottom of side surface 9) [Par 173-175].
Re Claim 6, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 5.
But Ozeki does not explicitly disclose, wherein a ratio of a width of the first surface to a maximum width of the groove ranges from greater than 0 to 0.5 or less.
However, Ozeki does teach (see Fig. 3a-3b, and 6-7) the general control of the geometry of the groove, including the depth of the first surface (depth D) [Par 175], the radius of curvature of the inclined surface [Par 175], the shape of the first surface (bottom 8) [Par 189], the overall slope of the inclined plane (“…The side surface 9 is in a curved shape (R shape) smoothly connecting to the bottom 8. “) and methods for accomplishing this (“The presence or absence of the protruding portion of the bottom 8, and the thickness in the direction Z of the protruding portion may be controlled by the etching conditions…”) [Par 189]. Therefore the prior art does teach the general control of the groove geometry of an optical member. Further, since Ozeki teaches the radius of curvature of the inclined surface [Par 175], Ozeki also teaches the general control of the lateral size of the inclined surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of adjusting radius of curvature of the inclined surface such that the total width of the inclined surfaces is at least half the width of the groove, and thus the width of the first surface comprises between 0-0.5 the total width of the groove. Further, Ozeki teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to improve overall finger touch adaptability and reducing cracking or breaking [Par 183].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ozeki in order to provide better finger touch adaptability and reducing cracking or breaking [Par 183]
Re Claim 7, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 5.
But Ozeki does not explicitly disclose, wherein an angle a of a plane connecting the flat portion to the first surface with respect to a base of the inclined surface ranges from greater than 0° to 45° or less.
Optimizing incline angle is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ozeki teaches, incline angle which achieves a recognized result (See Fig. 4 that specifically has a “more gently curved” side surface 9), to improve touch adaptability [Par 175].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting incline angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize incline angle, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 8, Ozeki discloses, the optical member as claimed in claim 1, and Ozeki further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the optical functional layer (thick portion 17 and thin portion 13) is a hard coating layer (thin portion 13 has a hardness of 500 Hv or higher for scratch resistance) [Par 197].
Re Claim 9, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 1 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 10, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 2 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 11, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 3 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 12, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 4 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 13, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 1 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 14, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in claim 6 (cover glass of Fig. 6 can be used in LCD, touch screens and monitors) [Par 313].
Re Claim 15, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 7 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Re Claim 16, Ozeki discloses further on Fig. 6, an optical display device comprising the optical member as claimed in Claim 8 (computer monitor, camera member, LCD, etc.) [Par 175 and Par 313].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwon (US 20190033493 A1) teaches a display device with a groove.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872