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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 9-10 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.
Re claims 9-10, that the buffer comprises an intermixing that gradually decreases is not clear as layers are static and don’t move. The Examiner interprets the claims as rejected below.
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 20220043185 (Ahn).
Re claims 1-17, Ahn teaches a window cover film and [29, 176] panel as claimed save the exact construction; however, the modification is taught within obviousness of Ahn. See [40] to the overall construction: hard coating/base layer/low refractive layer and see [155] for teaching the plurality of or alternative or hard coating layers on both sides of the base. This teaching results in the obvious modification to add a top hard coat layer or at least 3 layers on the base and the teaching also teaches [44] impact absorption or functional layers, thus the resultant construction when modified yields at least a top 2 layers of hard coating layers/base/impact layer/hard coating/low refractive layer functional layer. The exact same material and amounts art taught. Ahn teaches the cured elastomer resin [117-120, 125] (claim 6), the urethane resin or methacrylic [136] as claimed (claim 7), the overlapping ranges of parts of claim 8 (see [129, 119], (100 parts base aforesaid resin, 0.1-10 parts of the photoinitiator is taught [117-125]) and polyimide [25, 130], methacrylic [136, 155], antifinger print is dually functionally as a hard coat [155] (claim 16) and therefore, while not explicit, the modulus claims are inherent.
Because Ahn teaches the duplicity of hard coating layers, stacked, or alternate, or more than 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the top hard coating and adjacent layers under the base as Ahn teaches the addition of a top hard coating layer to make two stacked layers and an additional impact layer on the middle hard coating layer by addition to the construction already taught as the suggested teaching arrives at applicant’s invention (2 hard coat/base/buffer/impact/hard coating/low refractive layer) resulting in a window film and display.
While the exact properties and claimed ratios are not taught, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages " In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. The properties are inherent as the same material and amounts are taught.
Regarding the recited ratios to combine parts recited in claims 4, and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to experimentally optimize ratios of the materials to obtain desired hardness and durability, depending upon the material content and composition of the layers.
Regarding the ranges not taught in claims 1-4, 8, 11, and 14, the overlapping ranges, the following application applies: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges of MPa and ratios of claimed materials for improving functionality of each layer taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Further to claims 9-10, the following application applies: The process limitations “intermixing” and “gradually decreases” are not dispositive of the issue of patentability of the present article claims.
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