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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated January 30, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains multiple abbreviations that need to be defined. The abbreviations should be written out, followed by the abbreviation in paratheses. Please see page 2, line 13 with regard to the materials of the film.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 5 – 9 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.
The phrase “an upper removing layer comprising: a first substrate; and a first adhesive layer, and a lower actual use layer comprising: a second substrate; and a second adhesive layer; and a bottom film comprising: a first release layer; and a dust-sticking adhesive layer, a second release layer, and a substrate layer, wherein the first substrate, the first adhesive layer, the second substrate, the second adhesive layer, the first release layer, the substrate layer, the dust-sticking adhesive layer, and the second release layer are sequentially arranged from top to bottom, and wherein the bottom film is divided into several parts” in claim 1 is unclear, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The order of layers of the multilayered film in claim 1 does not match Applicant’s Figure 1 as argued in the response. Claim 1 contains the very specific limitation of “the first substrate, the first adhesive layer, the second substrate, the second adhesive layer, the first release layer, the substrate layer, the dust-sticking adhesive layer, and the second release layer are sequentially arranged from top to bottom”. The table below shows the order of layers as presented by Applicant’s Figure 1 and the order of Claim 1 has it was amended in the response.
Applicant’s Figure 1 Layer Order
Claim 1 Layer Order
Substrate Layer 1
First Substrate Layer
Adhesive Layer 2
First Adhesive Layer
Substrate Layer 1
Second Substrate Layer
Adhesive Layer 2
Second Adhesive Layer
Release Layer 3
First Release Layer
Substrate Layer 4
Dust-sticking Adhesive Layer
Dust-sticking Adhesive Layer 5
Second Release Layer
Release Layer 3
Substrate Layer
Since the claim requires the layers to be in sequential order, there is a difference in what the Applicant’s is arguing versus what the claim is stating. It is unclear what structure is desired.
Claims 3, and 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency on the above rejected claim.
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 1, 3, and 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (USPN 10,598,827) in view of Ozeki (USPGPub 2016/0043765 A1), Mase (USPGPub 2009/0186181 A1) and Hsu et al. (USPGPub 2005/0249946 A1).
Baek et al. disclose a multilayered film (Figure 1; Abstract) comprising a surface protective film (Figure 1, #40, 45, 10 and 15) comprising an upper removing layer (Figure 1, #40, 45) comprising a first substrate (Figure 1, #40); and a first adhesive layer (Figure 1, #45), and a lower actual use layer (Figure 1, #10 and 15) comprising a second substrate (Figure 1, #10); and a second adhesive layer (Figure 1, #15); and a bottom film (Figure 1, #20, 60, 30 and 50) comprising a first release layer (Figure 1, #20); and a dust-sticking adhesive layer (Figure 1, #60; Column 11, lines 10 – 18), a second release layer (Figure 1, #30), and a substrate layer (Figure 1, #50), wherein the first substrate, the first adhesive layer, the second substrate, the second adhesive layer, the first release layer, the substrate layer, the dust-sticking adhesive layer, and the second release layer are sequentially arranged from top to bottom (Figure 1, #40, 45, 10, 15, 20, 60, 30 and 50) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 3, the lower actual use layer is a film body of polyethylene terephthalate (Column 8, lines 29 – 36). However, Baek et al. fail to disclose the bottom film is divided into several parts, the lower actual use layer is a layer of film body formed by performing anti-reflection (AR) treatment, anti-glare (AG) treatment, anti-blue-light treatment, anti-peep treatment, anti-fingerprint treatment, and anti-scratch treatment or self-repairing treatment on a surface, each of the first release layer, the substrate layer, and the dust-sticking adhesive layer is divided into two pieces, and the second release layer is formed in one piece, the substrate layer is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, a polycarbonate (PC) film, a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) film, or a triacetyl cellulose (TAC) film, the bottom film is divided into left and right sections in a midline, alignment handles as protruding portions are respectively arranged at two ends of the multilayered film, the alignment handles are located on the upper removing layer or on the bottom film, and the alignment handles are arranged diagonally.
Ozeki et al. teach a multilayer film (Figures; Abstract) having a bottom film divided into several parts (Figure 3, #3a, b and c), wherein the film also contain tab films (Figure 6, #6) for the purpose of removing the film (Paragraph 0035)
Mase teach a multilayered film (Figures; Abstract) having a bottom film (Figure 1, #2 and 3) comprising: a first release layer (Figure 1, #2 and 3); and a dust-sticking adhesive layer (Figure 1, #2a and 3a), wherein, and wherein the bottom film is divided into several parts (Paragraphs 0022 – 0024; Figure 1, #5), each of the first release layer, the substrate layer, and the dust-sticking adhesive layer is divided into two pieces, and the second release layer is formed in one piece (Figures 1 – 4, #2, #2a, #, 3a and 5; Paragraphs 0022 – 0024), the bottom film is divided into left and right sections in a midline (Figures 1 – 4, #2, #2a, #, 3a and 5; Paragraphs 0022 – 0024 and 0030 – 0034; Claim 1), alignment handles as protruding portions are respectively arranged at two ends of the multilayered film (Figure 4), and the alignment handles on the bottom film, and the alignment handles are arranged diagonally (Figure 4, where the split handles are diagonal from each other) for the purpose of efficiently removing dust and particulate matter prior to the application of a protective film (Abstract).
Hsu et al. teach a screen protector having an actual use layer (Figures; Abstract), wherein the actual use layer is a layer of film body formed by performing anti-reflection (AR) treatment, anti-glare (AG) treatment, anti-blue-light treatment, anti-peep treatment, anti-fingerprint treatment and anti-scratch treatment or self-repairing treatment on a surface of a PET film, or a PC film, (Abstract; Paragraphs 0002, 0025, 0030), and the substrate layer is a PET film (Paragraph 0017) for the purpose of providing a protection film for an article (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bottom film divided in parts with tab handles and a PET with a treated surface in Baek et al. in order to remove the bottom film as taught by Ozeki, to efficiently remove dust and particulate matter prior to the application of a protective film as taught by Mase, and to provide a protection film for an article as taught by Hsu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5 – 9 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.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach or disclose the proper order and number of layers, please see the 112 2nd rejection above, along with the newly presented 103 rejection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia L Nordmeyer whose telephone number is (571)272-1496. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6:30pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Patricia L. Nordmeyer/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/pln/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 March 13, 2026