DETAILED 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 15, 21, and 22 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the substrate" in first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the substrate" in second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the first substrate" in second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-15, 17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. (US 20170290182).
Roberts discloses a screen protector laminate. Concerning claims 1 and 12, Roberts discloses the screen protector laminate comprises a PET layer that can have an anti-scratch coating disposed on the top major surface and a TPU layer disposed on the lower major surface of the PET layer (FIGS. 1 and 2; para. 0006-0026). Regarding claim 4, the term “extruded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting structure of Roberts is a single, unitary structure prior to disposing the laminate onto a screen, the structure of Roberts meets the instant claim.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, since the materials are the same and the laminate is used to protect a display, the haze and transmission must necessarily be within the claimed range. Concerning claim 10, the laminate can further include release layers (para. 0027). In regards to claim 11, the limitation “sputtered” is a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting anti-scratch coating of Roberts is in the same position as that claimed, the structure of Roberts meets the limitation as claimed. With respect to claim 13, the screen is broadly a window allowing for the electronic structure having images projected to the user and as such, meets the instant claims.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 23, the laminate as disclosed above is disposed on a glass front face of an electronic mobile device (para. 0001-0002). Regarding claim 17, the term “extruded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting structure of Roberts is a single, unitary structure prior to disposing the laminate onto a screen, the structure of Roberts meets the instant claim. Concerning claim 20, prior to disposing the laminate onto the glass surface, a release layer is disposed (para. 0027).
Claims 1, 4, 10-15, 17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietrich et al. (EP 4000918).
Dietrich discloses a composite film and plate for windows. Concerning claims 1 and 12, Dietrich discloses the composite film comprises a PET layer with a hard coating disposed on the first outer surface and a TPU layer that is in contact with the second surface of the PET layer (Figure 1, Example 1; para. 0059-0062). Regarding claim 4, the term “extruded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting structure of Dietrich is a single, unitary structure prior to disposing the laminate onto a window, the structure of Dietrich meets the instant claim. With respect to claim 10, a release liner is disposed on the adhesive layer and removed prior to adhering the composite film to the glass sheet of the window (Figure 1, Example 1; para. 0060). In regards to claim 11, the limitation “sputtered” is a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting anti-scratch coating of Dietrich is in the same position as that claimed, the structure of Dietrich meets the limitation as claimed. Regarding claim 13, the composite film is applied to windows (para. 0041).
With respect to claims 14-15 and 23, the above composite laminate is applied a transparent glass wherein the above composite laminate has the claimed layers in the claimed order (Figure 1, Examples; para. 0058-0072). Regarding claim 17, the term “extruded” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation and since the resulting structure of Dietrich is a single, unitary structure prior to disposing the laminate onto a window, the structure of Dietrich meets the instant claim. Concerning claim 20, a release liner is disposed on the adhesive layer and removed prior to adhering the composite film to the glass sheet of the window (Figure 1, Example 1; para. 0060).
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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20170290182) in view of Bender et al. (Applied Materials & Interfaces).
Roberts discloses the above but is silent to the specific material of the anti-scratch coating.
Bender discloses hard (or anti-scratch) coatings can comprise a silicone (or POSS) material for improved durability and wearability (abstract; pp. 10467-10477). As such, for improved durability and wearability, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the materials of Bender as the anti-scratch coating of Roberts.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich et al. (EP 4000918).
Concerning claims 2-3 and 16, Dietrich discloses the total thickness of the composite film is from 400 to 1500 microns, which includes and encompasses the claimed ranges when converted (para. 0012). Regarding claims 5-6, 16, and 18, the thickness of the PET layer is from 50 to 200 microns (para. 0023) and the TPU layer is from 50 to 400 microns which overlaps and includes the claimed ranges when converted (para. 0018). With respect to claims 7 and 8, the visible transmittance is at least 80% and the haze is less than 6%, wherein the values overlap and include the claimed ranges (para. 0016).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich et al. (EP 4000918) in view of Bender et al. (Applied Materials & Interfaces).
Roberts discloses the above but is silent to the specific material of the hard coating.
Bender discloses hard coatings can comprise a silicone (or POSS) material for improved durability and wearability (abstract; pp. 10467-10477). As such, for improved durability and wearability, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the materials of Bender as the anti-scratch coating of Dietrich.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich et al. (EP 4000918) in view of CPNI Interlayers Technical Report.
Dietrich discloses that the composite film is applied to windows but is silent to the structure of the window.
The CPNI Technical Report discloses a window having the claimed structure with the interlayer and further optically transparent substrate allows for bullet, impact, and blast resistance, with the combination resulting in the claimed structure (pp. 2-3 and 6; Summary Table). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the interlayer and second optically transparent substrate in the order as claimed, in order to provide a laminated glass that allows for bullet, impact, and blast resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights