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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments in the response dated June 4, 2026. However, new rejections may have been made using the same prior art if still applicable to the newly presented amendments and/or arguments.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 – 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Keogh (USPGPub 2020/0162597 A1).
Keogh discloses a multilayered film (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a surface protective film (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057 and 0040 – 0042) comprising: an upper removing layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057) comprising: a first substrate (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057); and a first adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057), and a lower actual use layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042) comprising: a second substrate (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a second adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a bottom film (Paragraphs 0043 - 0053) comprising: a first release layer (Paragraph 0048); a substrate layer (Paragraph 0048); a dust-sticking adhesive layer (Paragraph 0049); and a second release layer (Paragraphs 0050 – 0053), 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 (Paragraphs 0040 – 0053), and wherein the bottom film is divided into several parts (Paragraphs 0044 – 0046) as in claim 1. With respect to claim 5,
each of the first release layer, the substrate layer, and the dust-sticking adhesive layer is divided into two pieces (Paragraphs 0044 – 0046), and the second release layer is formed in one piece (Paragraphs 0050 – 0053). Regarding claim 6, the substrate layer is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (Paragraph 0053). For claim 7, the bottom film is divided into left and right sections in a midline (Paragraphs 0044 – 0046). In claim 8, alignment handles as protruding portions are respectively arranged at two ends of the multilayered film (Figures; Paragraphs 0046 and 0050 – 0053). With regard to claim 10, the dust-sticking adhesive layer is configured to be exposed, when the second release layer is uncovered, to remove dust on a surface of a screen (Paragraphs 0046 – 0049). As in claim 11, the substrate layer is configured to be stuck and fixed on a screen, and the lower actual use layer is configured to be stuck and fixed on the substrate layer through the second adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057 and 0040 – 0042).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keogh (USPGPub 2020/0162597 A1) in view of Hsu et al. (USPGPub 2005/0249946 A1).
Keogh discloses a multilayered film (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a surface protective film (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057 and 0040 – 0042) comprising: an upper removing layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057) comprising: a first substrate (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057); and a first adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057), and a lower actual use layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042) comprising: a second substrate (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a second adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a bottom film (Paragraphs 0043 - 0053) comprising: a first release layer (Paragraph 0048); a substrate layer (Paragraph 0048); a dust-sticking adhesive layer (Paragraph 0049); and a second release layer (Paragraphs 0050 – 0053), 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 (Paragraphs 0040 – 0053), and wherein the bottom film is divided into several parts (Paragraphs 0044 – 0046). However, Keogh fails to disclose 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 of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, a polycarbonate (PC) film, a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) film, or a triacetyl cellulose (TAC) film.
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 PET with a treated surface in Keogh in order to provide a protection film for an article as taught by Hsu et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keogh (USPGPub 2020/0162597 A1) in view of Mase (USPGPub 2009/0186181 A1).
Keogh discloses a multilayered film (Figures; Abstract) comprising: a surface protective film (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057 and 0040 – 0042) comprising: an upper removing layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057) comprising: a first substrate (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057); and a first adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0054 – 0057), and a lower actual use layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042) comprising: a second substrate (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a second adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0040 – 0042); and a bottom film (Paragraphs 0043 - 0053) comprising: a first release layer (Paragraph 0048); a substrate layer (Paragraph 0048); a dust-sticking adhesive layer (Paragraph 0049); and a second release layer (Paragraphs 0050 – 0053), 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 (Paragraphs 0040 – 0053), and wherein the bottom film is divided into several parts (Paragraphs 0044 – 0046). The film has alignment handles as protruding portions are respectively arranged at two ends of the multilayered film (Figures; Paragraphs 0046 and 0050 – 0053). In claim 9, the alignment handles are located on the upper removing layer or on the bottom film (Figures; Paragraphs 0046 and 0050 – 0053). However, Keogh fails to disclose the alignment handles are arranged diagonally.
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).
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 diagonally located tab handles in Keogh in order to efficiently remove dust and particulate matter prior to the application of a protective film as taught by Mase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 5 – 11 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.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art failed to disclose the specific order of layers in the multilayered film, please see the newly presented rejection in view of Keogh.
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 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights