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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 7-16 in the reply filed on 03 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a shared technical feature exists among Groups I and II, and thus the groups should be prosecuted together (see Response at Pg. 6). This is not found persuasive because the shared feature does not constitute a special technical feature in view of WO 2020/263631 to Thothadri et al. and US 2015/0132552 to Kang et al. as discussed herein. Accordingly, the identified groups lack unity of invention and thus merit election.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/263631 to Thothadri et al. (“Thothadri”) in view of US 2015/0132552 to Kang et al. (“Kang”).
With regard to Claim 7, Thothadri teaches a method of forming a cover lens structure comprising depositing a hardcoat layer on a substrate via a wet deposition process, depositing an adhesion promotion layer thereon, and depositing another hardcoat layer thereon via a dry deposition process (see Abstract; FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0059]-[0060], [0072], [0074]-[0075], [0084], [0100]). Thothadri further teaches depositing an anti-smudge layer and disposing the coated substrate on a touch panel display device (see FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0059]-[0060], [0072]-[0075], [0084], [0100], [0108]-[0109], [0141]-[0142]). Thothadri does not expressly teach provision of a hardcoat layer via a wet process on an opposing substrate side. Kang is similarly directed to hardcoat layers on display devices (see Abstract; ¶ [0010]), and teaches provision of hardcoat layers via a wet deposition process on both sides of a treated substrate yielding improved coated article properties (see ¶¶ [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0041], [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied a hardcoat layer on both substrate sides in the method of Thothadri, as taught by Kang, in order to obtain improved properties.
With regard to Claim 8, Thothadri teaches roll-to-roll formation of layers (see ¶¶ [0075], [0084]) and provision of a sacrificial adhesion layer degradable at 60-120°C (see ¶¶ [0137]-[0138]). To the extent that the disclosure of Thothadri does not imply deposition from a roll at temperatures within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied roll-deposited layers at temperatures within the claimed range to avoid prematurely degrading the sacrificial layer.
With regard to Claims 9-10, Thothadri teaches polyethylene terephthalate substrates (see ¶ [0072]).
With regard to Claim 11, Thothadri teaches spray coating as a wet deposition process, and subsequent curing (see ¶¶ [0082], [0109]). Kang additionally teaches provision of hardcoat layers comprising a solvent and subsequent curing (see ¶ [0041]).
2. Claim 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thothadri in view of Kang as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of WO 2012/136529 to Yan et al. (“Yan”).
With regard to Claims 12-16, Thothadri teaches deposition of layers via roll-to-roll processes (see ¶ [0075]). To the extent that the reel rotation and arrangement features of Claims 12-16 are not expressly taught by Thothadri, Yan is directed to a continuous roll-to-roll multilayer coating process and apparatus, and teaches the claimed reel arrangements comprising a plurality of winding/unwinding storage reels, transfer rollers, and rotation thereof (see Abstract; FIG. 1; Pgs. 21, 23, 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have pursued roll-to-roll multilayer coating in the method of Thothadri in view of Kang as claimed in order to conduct a continuous coating operation as taught by Yan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights