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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glachino et al (US 10353123) in view of Bellman et al (US 11520082)
Regarding Claim 1,
Glachino et al discloses (Figures 1 to Figure 4) An electronic device comprising: a housing (12); a display (14) positioned within the housing; and a cover glass (14, see column 3, lines 22-30) disposed over the display (14) and attached to the housing (12), the cover glass comprising: a glass sheet; an interference layer (36) disposed on the glass sheet, the interference layer having a first layer with a first optical constant and a second layer with a second optical constant (Column 2, lines 10-15), wherein the first optical constant is different than the second optical constant.
Glachino et al does not disclose a hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet.
Bellman et al discloses (ABSTRACT)(column 9, lines 37-45)a hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer (hybrid gradient interference hard coating including Sioxny hard layers and optical interference structures for display covers and glass components) and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Glachino et al to include Bellman et al’s hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet motivated by the desire to improve scratch resistance, durability, and optical performance.
Regarding Claim 2,11,20,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Glachino et al discloses (Figures 1 to Figure 4) wherein the interference layer includes three or more layers (“..one or more organic and/or inorganic dielectric layers”, one or more overlaps three or more layers as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4,13,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Bellman et al discloses wherein the hard-coat layer is predominantly SiON (column 14, Table 1).
Regarding Claim 5,6,14,15,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Glachino et al discloses interference coatings comprising alternating dielectric layers with different refractive indices. Bellman et al discloses silicon oxynitride optical coatings and multilayer interference structures, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice because these materials were known dielectric material for controlling refractive index and reflection. Therefore, Glachino et al and Bellman et al discloses wherein the interference layer comprises a third layer disposed on the second layer, and wherein the first layer is SiON, the second layer is SiO2 and the third layer is SiON.
Regarding Claim 6,15, therefore, substitution of Sin and Sio2 dielectric layers would have been obvious because sin/sio2 multilayers were conventional AR interference coatings. Therefore, Glachino and Bellman et al discloses wherein the interference layer comprises a third layer disposed on the second layer, and wherein the first layer is SiN, the second layer is SiO2 and the third layer is SiN.
Regarding Claim 7,16,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Bellman et al discloses further comprising a gradient layer disposed on the glass sheet and an intermediate hard-coat layer disposed on the gradient layer, wherein the interference layer is disposed on the intermediate hard-coat layer (ABSTRACT).
Regarding Claim 8,17,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Glachino et al discloses wherein each of the first and the second layers have a thickness between 10 and 100 nanometers. One would have recognized wherein each of the first and the second layers have a thickness between 10 and 100 nanometers as a result-effective variable able to be optimized for thinner layers to produce thinner devices.
Regarding Claim 9,18,
In addition to Glachino et al and Bellman et al, Bellman et al discloses wherein the interference layer interacts via destructive interference with the hard-coat layer to reduce a reflectance of the cover glass as compared to a reflectance of the cover glass without the interference layer (column 2, lines 8-15).
Regarding Claim 10,
Glachino et al discloses (Figures 1 to Figure 4) a glass sheet (14, see column 3, lines 22-30); an interference layer (36) disposed on the glass sheet, the interference layer (36) having a first layer with a first optical constant and a second layer with a second optical constant, wherein the first optical constant is different than the second optical constant (Column 2, lines 10-15).
Glachino et al does not disclose a hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet.
Bellman et al discloses (ABSTRACT)(column 9, lines 37-45) hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Glachino et al to include Bellman et al’s hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet motivated by the desire to improve scratch resistance, durability, and optical performance.
Regarding Claim 19,
Glachino et al discloses (Figures 1 to Figure 4) A method of forming a transparent substrate, the method comprising: providing a glass sheet (14, see column 3, lines 22-30); the interference layer (36) having a first layer with a first optical constant and a second layer with a second optical constant, wherein the first optical constant is different than the second optical constant; (Column 2, lines 10-15).
Glachino et al does not disclose depositing a gradient layer on the glass sheet; depositing an intermediate hard-coat layer on the gradient layer, wherein the gradient layer transitions from a composition of the glass sheet to a composition of the intermediate hard-coat layer; depositing an interference layer on the intermediate hard-coat layer, and depositing a hard-coat layer on the interference layer, wherein a hardness of the hard-coat layer is greater than a hardness of the glass sheet.
Bellman et al discloses (Fig. 2)(ABSTRACT)(column 9, lines 37-45) discloses depositing a gradient layer ;(ABSTRACT) on the glass sheet; depositing an intermediate hard-coat layer (125) on the gradient layer, wherein the gradient layer transitions from a composition of the glass sheet to a composition of the intermediate hard-coat layer (125); depositing an interference layer on the intermediate hard-coat layer, and depositing a hard-coat layer on the interference layer, wherein a hardness of the hard-coat layer is greater than a hardness of the glass sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Glachino et al to include Bellman et al’s hard-coat layer disposed on the interference layer and having a hardness that is greater than the glass sheet motivated by the desire to improve scratch resistance, durability, and optical performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3,12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 3,12,
The prior art does not disclose wherein the first and the second optical constants are selected based at least in part on an optical constant of the hard-coat layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST 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 Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights