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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because for figures 2 and 4, the figures and the corresponding labels appear on separate sheets. The figures should be formatted such that the figures and corresponding labels appear together. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 18 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.
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a cover window comprising a coating layer, the coating layer comprising 30 to 50 wt.-% of a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS), 20 to 30wt.-% of an epoxy-based oligomer, 10 to 20wt.-% of an epoxy-based monomer, 5 to 30wt.-% of nano-silica, 5 to 10wt.-% of a silicon oil, 1 to 5wt.-% of a metal oxide, 1 to 3wt.-% of an ultraviolet absorber, 1 to 3wt.-% of an ultraviolet scattering agent, 1 to 5wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 1 to 5wt.-% of other additives as generally set forth in claims 9 and/or 18, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1 and 8, or 10 and 17, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 require a light stabilizer. However, aside from the HALS (hindered amine light stabilizer), which is separately indicated in the claims and the specification (see page 11, lines 10-12), no examples of a light stabilizer are provided in the specification.
The claims are claiming the compositions for a base material layer and a black layer as used in the claimed cover window. The nature of the invention is such that it is understood the specific composition will have an effect on the properties of the cover window (see page 11, lines 8-14). The prior art provides for a wide variety of light stabilizers and one of ordinary skill in the art could select any of them to meet the claimed requirements, however, it is not necessarily the case that any given light stabilizer will work with the other claimed components of the compositions or will achieve the same properties of the cover window. The present specification provides no working examples of light stabilizers aside from the previously mentioned HALS. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to perform undue experimentation to determine which light stabilizer(s) would work in the claimed compositions.
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 6-7 and 15-16 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.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15-16, the claims each recite the limitations “1 to 3 wt% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer)” and “1 to 3 wt% of a light stabilizer”. However, since HALS is a light stabilizer, it is not clear if the 1 to 3 wt% of a light stabilizer is intended to be a different light stabilizer or include the HALS.
The specification, while clearly delineating the HALS and the light stabilizer, does not provide any examples of other light stabilizers that can be used along with the HALS.
As such, the claims are interpreted such that the “1 to 3 wt% of a light stabilizer” includes the “1 to 3 wt% of a HALS”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/932,588 (published as US 2025/0146639) (reference application 1). All citations are to the claim set filed 30 October 2024. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, reference application 1 claims a cover window (claim 1, line 1), comprising: a base material layer formed of a transparent plastic material (claim 1, line 2); a black layer stacked on one surface of the base material layer and formed along a periphery of the base material layer (claim 1, lines 3-4); and an elastomer layer formed to surround another surface of the base material layer and one surface of the black layer (claim 1, lines 5-6, where the elastomer layer surrounds both the base material layer and the black layer).
Regarding claim 2, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the black layer, a protrusion protruding based on one surface of the black layer and coupled to the elastomer layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the elastomer layer is formed (claim 3).
Regarding claim 3, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 1 also claims that the black layer is stacked on the base material layer by dual injection or insert injection, and wherein a molding protrusion is formed in an injection mold at a corresponding position on a boundary surface between the base material layer and the black layer, inside the base material layer (claim 4).
Regarding claim 4, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 3.
Reference application 1 also claims that a notch corresponding to a shape of the molding protrusion is formed in the base material layer (claim 5).
Regarding claim 5, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 4.
Reference application 1 also claims that the notch is formed to have a thickness which is 5% to 10% of a thickness of the black layer (claim 6).
Regarding claim 6, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 1 also claims that the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material (claim 7).
Regarding claim 7, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 1 also claims that the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material, and 0.0001 to 5wt.-% of a light shielding agent (claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 1 also claims that the cover window further comprises: a coating layer stacked on another surface of the base material layer, wherein the elastomer layer is formed to surround the black layer, the base material layer, and the coating layer (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, reference application 1 claims a method for manufacturing a cover window (claim 11, line 1), comprising: forming a base material layer formed of a transparent plastic material (claim 11, line 2); forming a black layer on one surface of the base material layer along a periphery of the base material layer (claim 11, lines 3-4); and forming an elastomer layer to surround another surface of the base material layer and one surface of the black layer (claim 11, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 10.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the forming a black layer, a protrusion protruding based on one surface of the black layer and coupled to the elastomer layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the elastomer layer is formed in the black layer (claim 13).
Regarding claim 12, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 10.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the forming a black layer, the black layer is stacked on the base material layer by dual injection or insert injection, and a molding protrusion is formed in an injection mold at a corresponding position on a boundary surface between the base material layer and the black layer, inside the base material layer (claim 14).
Regarding claim 13, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 12.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the forming a black layer, a notch corresponding to a shape of the molding protrusion is formed in the base material layer (claim 15).
Regarding claim 14, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 13.
Reference application 1 also claims that the notch is formed to have a thickness which is 5% to 10% of a thickness of the black layer (claim 16).
Regarding claim 15, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 10.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the forming a base material layer, the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material (claim 17).
Regarding claim 16, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 10.
Reference application 1 also claims that in the forming a black layer, the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material, and 0.0001 to 5wt.-% of a light shielding agent (claim 18).
Regarding claim 17, reference application 1 claims all of the limitations of claim 10.
Reference application 1 also claims that further comprising: forming a coating layer on another surface of the base material layer after the forming a black layer, wherein the elastomer layer is formed to surround the black layer, the base material layer, and the coating layer (claim 19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 are additionally provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/932,563 (published as US 2025/0135855) (reference application 2). All citations are to the claim set filed 3 September 2026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, reference application 2 claims a cover window (claim 1, line 1), comprising: a base material layer formed of a transparent plastic material (claim 1, line 2); a black layer stacked on one surface of the base material layer and formed along a periphery of the base material layer (claim 1, lines 3-4); and an elastomer layer formed to surround another surface of the base material layer and one surface of the black layer (claim 8, where the elastomer layer surrounds both the base material layer and the black layer).
Regarding claim 2, reference application 2 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
Reference application 2 also claims that in the black layer, a protrusion protruding based on one surface of the black layer and coupled to the elastomer layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the elastomer layer is formed (claim 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1,8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0178635 to Imaizumi et al. (hereafter Imaizumi).
Regarding claim 1, Imaizumi discloses a cover window (see at least Fig. 3), comprising: a base material layer formed of a transparent plastic material (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0018], where panel body 22 is a base material layer and is made of a thermoplastic resin having light transmissivity); a black layer stacked on one surface of the base material layer and formed along a periphery of the base material layer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0333], where the frame can include dyes and pigments such as carbon black), where frame 23 is a black layer); and an elastomer layer formed to surround another surface of the base material layer and one surface of the black layer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0481], where rubber seal member 26 is a rubber layer, which can include an elastomer).
Regarding claim 8, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Imaizumi also discloses a coating layer stacked on another surface of the base material layer (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1, where second layer 2b is a coating layer stacked on base material layer 2a), wherein the elastomer layer is formed to surround the black layer, the base material layer, and the coating layer (see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Imaizumi discloses a method for manufacturing a cover window (see at least Fig. 3), comprising: forming a base material layer formed of a transparent plastic material (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0018], where panel body 22 is a base material layer and is made of a thermoplastic resin having light transmissivity); forming a black layer on one surface of the base material layer along a periphery of the base material layer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0333], where the frame can include dyes and pigments such as carbon black); and forming an elastomer layer to surround another surface of the base material layer and one surface of the black layer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0007] and [0481], where rubber seal member 26 is a rubber layer, which can include an elastomer).
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0178635 to Imaizumi et al. (hereafter Imaizumi) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2017/0245382 to Jenkins (hereafter Jenkins).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that in the black layer, a protrusion protruding based on one surface of the black layer and coupled to the elastomer layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the elastomer layer is formed.
However, Jenkins teaches a molded product, wherein a protrusion protruding based on a surface of a layer and coupled to a molded layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the molded layer (see at least the abstract and Figs. 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover window of Imaizumi to include the teachings of Jenkins so that in the black layer, a protrusion protruding based on one surface of the black layer and coupled to the elastomer layer such that the protrusion is inserted into the elastomer layer is formed for the purpose of increasing the adherence between the black layer and the elastomer layer (see at least paragraph [0073] of Jenkins).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0178635 to Imaizumi et al. (hereafter Imaizumi) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2022/0326548 to Veldkamp et al. (hereafter Veldkamp).
Regarding claim 6, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Imaizumi also discloses that the base material comprises a polycarbonate resin (see at least paragraph [0179]), colored pigments (see at least paragraphs [0218]-[0219]), and a solvent used for a coating material (see at least paragraph [0194]).
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that the base material layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer.
However, Veldkamp teaches a polymeric film layer that includes polycarbonate, colored pigments, light stabilizers such as HALS, and a solvent (see at least paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover window of Imaizumi to include the teachings of Veldkamp so that the base material layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer for the purpose of improving the durability of the cover window, particularly under exposure to light such as sunlight.
Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp does not specifically disclose that the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the composition including the various wt% of materials include achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the base material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp so that that the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material. for the purpose of achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the base material.
Regarding claim 7, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Imaizumi also discloses that the black layer comprises a polycarbonate resin (see at least paragraph [0244]), colored pigments (see at least paragraph [0333]), and a solvent used for a coating material (see at least paragraph [0310]), and a light shielding agent (see at least paragraph [0333], where carbon black is a light shielding agent).
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that the black layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer.
However, Veldkamp teaches a polymeric film layer that includes polycarbonate, colored pigments, light stabilizers such as HALS, and a solvent (see at least paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover window of Imaizumi to include the teachings of Veldkamp so that the black layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer for the purpose of improving the durability of the cover window, particularly under exposure to light such as sunlight.
Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp does not specifically disclose that the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the composition including the various wt% of materials include achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the black layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp so that that the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material for the purpose of achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the black layer.
Regarding claim 15, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Imaizumi also discloses that the base material comprises a polycarbonate resin (see at least paragraph [0179]), colored pigments (see at least paragraphs [0218]-[0219]), and a solvent used for a coating material (see at least paragraph [0194]).
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that the base material layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer.
However, Veldkamp teaches a polymeric film layer that includes polycarbonate, colored pigments, light stabilizers such as HALS, and a solvent (see at least paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Imaizumi to include the teachings of Veldkamp so that the base material layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer for the purpose of improving the durability of the cover window, particularly under exposure to light such as sunlight.
Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp does not specifically disclose that the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the composition including the various wt% of materials include achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the base material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp so that that the base material layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material for the purpose of achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the base material.
Regarding claim 16, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Imaizumi also discloses that the black layer comprises a polycarbonate resin (see at least paragraph [0244]), colored pigments (see at least paragraph [0333]), and a solvent used for a coating material (see at least paragraph [0310]), and a light shielding agent (see at least paragraph [0333], where carbon black is a light shielding agent).
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that the black layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer.
However, Veldkamp teaches a polymeric film layer that includes polycarbonate, colored pigments, light stabilizers such as HALS, and a solvent (see at least paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Imaizumi to include the teachings of Veldkamp so that the black layer comprises a HALS and a light stabilizer for the purpose of improving the durability of the cover window, particularly under exposure to light such as sunlight.
Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp does not specifically disclose that the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the composition including the various wt% of materials include achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the black layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Imaizumi as modified by Veldkamp so that that the black layer comprises 80 to 90wt.-% of a polycarbonate (PC) resin, 1 to 5wt.-% of colored pigments, 1 to 3wt.-% of a HALS (Hindered Amine Light Stabilizer), 1 to 3wt.-% of a light stabilizer, and 0.1 to 5wt.-% of a solvent used for a coating material. for the purpose of achieving a desired hardness, color, and durability of the black layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0178635 to Imaizumi et al. (hereafter Imaizumi).
Regarding claim 17, Imaizumi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Imaizumi also discloses forming a coating layer on another surface of the base material layer (see at least the abstract and Fig. 1, where second layer 2b is a coating layer stacked on base material layer 2a), wherein the elastomer layer is formed to surround the black layer, the base material layer, and the coating layer (see at least Fig. 3).
Imaizumi does not specifically disclose that the coating layer is formed after the forming of the black layer.
However, it would have been obvious to alter the order of the steps of the method such that the coating layer is formed after the forming of the black layer since they are on opposite sides of the base material layer and thus the order of forming them will not affect the finished product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Imaizumi so that the coating layer is formed after the forming of the black layer for the purpose of being obvious to try changing the order of forming the layers for the purpose of optimizing the manufacturing of the cover window.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0227363 to Asada et al. teaches a semiconductor device comprising a notch formed to prevent the intrusion of molding material (see at least paragraph [0082]).
US 10,160,583 to Georgelos et al. teaches a molded component comprising protrusions to enhance connection (see at least Figs. 4A and 4B and Col. 2, lines 4-15).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights