DETAILED ACTION
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 without traverse of Group II, claims 1-17 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 3. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Due to the improper form, the following rejection is applied as best could be considering.
Re claims 1-17, while the claims are drawn to a system, the body of the claims are drawn to an article and will be interpreted as such.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210009867 A1 Kim et al. in view of US 20200123408 A1 Bu et al.
Re claims 1-17, Kim discloses a multilayer of UV curable composition including UV aromatic methacyrlates [0048-49], [132-139] and same or different silane agents, fillers for heat dissipation [25, 47-68, 110-111] and Examples 1-15 in the layers: adhesive (primer)/tacky(topcoat) on substrate. See patented claim 14. See also the metal oxide aluminum [111] in a mixtures of at least two or more.
However, Kim, while teaching aromatic methacrylates and same or different silanes, doesn’t teach additional functional methacrylates as claimed including di-tri-penta in additional layers (claims 14-16).
Bu teaches the exact claimed methacrylates (see Abstract) for scratch resistance [25-26] [57], Abstract and titania and silica [16-17] fillers and [57] in 5 wt% or less (overlapping claimed ranges effecting transparency) in hardcoats. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kim and include the variety of methacrylates of either Kim or Bu including the silanes, in at least two of each compound within overlapping amounts effecting transparency, as the same composition is coated successively as claimed and further by using the same composition layered 4 times or more, it would have been obvious to do so in order to provide even more scratch resistant properties. The duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. Providing additional UV coatings would have achieved expected results such as providing more UV properties. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378,380 (CCPA 1960).
References of Interest
The remaining references listed on form(s) 892 and/or 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights