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) 1,3-5,11-13,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) in view of Hart et al (US 20220011466)
Regarding Claim 1,
Feng et al discloses an antiglare article comprising: a substrate comprising a thickness and a primary surface, the primary surface having on at least a portion thereon a textured region [0010-0011]; a transmittance haze of less than 35% at an incident angle of 0° from normal [0094]; a sparkle of less than 3% at an incident angle of 0° from normal on a 140 PPI device [0007][0092]; a distinctness of image of less than 35% at an incident angle of 20° from normal; and a color separation of less than 0.6 [0093].
Feng et al does not disclose wherein the antiglare article exhibits: a first-surface absolute specular reflectance of less than or equal to 0.2% at an incident angle 6° from normal.
Hart et al discloses wherein the antiglare article exhibits: a first-surface absolute specular reflectance of less than or equal to 0.2% at an incident angle 6° from normal [0067-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al to include Hart et al’s a first-surface absolute specular reflectance of less than or equal to 0.2% at an incident angle 6° from normal [0067-0068] motivated by the desire to obtain the preditable benefit of further reduced first surface specular reflection.
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Hart et al discloses wherein the high spatial frequency sub-region comprises an ordered pattern [0159][0161][0119].
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Hart et al discloses wherein the high spatial frequency sub-region comprises concave features [0169][0127].
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Hart et al discloses wherein each of the concave features comprises a hexagonal perimeter parallel to a base-plane extending through the substrate disposed below the texture region [0161][0119].
Regarding Claim 11,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Feng et al discloses the transmittance haze is greater than or equal to 10% and less than 35%, the sparkle is greater than or equal to 1.5% and less than or equal to 3.5% at an incident angle of 0° from normal on a 140 PPI device, and the distinctness of image is greater than or equal to 0% and less than or equal to 30% at an incident angle of 20° from normal [0093]
Regarding Claim 12,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Feng et al discloses wherein the substrate comprises a glass substrate, a glass-ceramic substrate, or a ceramic substrate [0181].
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Feng et al discloses wherein the substrate comprises composition comprising: greater than or equal to 50 mol% and less than or equal to 70 mol% SiO2; greater than or equal to 10 mol% and less than or equal to 20 mol% Al2O3; greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 2 mol% P2O5; greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 6 mol% B2O3; greater than or equal to 5 mol% and less than or equal to 10 mol% Li2O; greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 10 mol% Na2O; and greater than or equal to 0.01 mol% and less than or equal to 1 mol% K2O [0081-0085].
Regarding Claim 15,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Hart et al discloses further comprising an optical coating disposed on the primary surface, wherein the optical coating is an anti-reflection coating comprising a total reflectance less than 1% [0067].
Regarding Claim 16,
In addition to Feng et al and Hart et al, Hart et al discloses wherein the antiglare article including the optical coating exhibits a hardness of greater than 8 GPa, as measured by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness test [0048] [0129]
Claim(s) 2,6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) and of Hart et al (US 20220011466) in view of Amin et al (US 12030805)
Regarding Claim 2,
Feng et al and Hart et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Feng et al and Hart et al does not disclose wherein the textured region comprises: a low spatial frequency sub-region and a high spatial frequency sub-region substantially superimposed within the low spatial frequency sub-region.
Amin et al discloses wherein the textured region (30a) comprises: a low spatial frequency sub-region (21) and a high spatial frequency sub-region (22) substantially superimposed within the low spatial frequency sub-region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al and Hart et al to include Amin et al’s textured region (30a) comprises: a low spatial frequency sub-region (21) and a high spatial frequency sub-region (22) substantially superimposed within the low spatial frequency sub-region motivated by the desire to reduce sparkle and DOI.
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Feng et al,Hart et al, and Amin et al, Amin et al discloses wherein the high spatial frequency sub-region has a period from 10 micron to 30 micron, a surface roughness (Sa) greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 400 nm, and feature sizes from 10 µm to 30 µm [0156].
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to Feng et al,Hart et al, and Amin et al, Amin et al discloses wherein the low spatial frequency sub-region comprises a random distribution [0005].
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Feng et al,Hart et al, and Amin et al, Amin et al discloses wherein the low spatial frequency sub-region has a period greater than or equal to 30 µm and less than or equal to 300 µm, a surface roughness greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 300 nm, and feature sizes from 100 microns to 300 micron (ABSTRACT).
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Feng et al,Hart et al, and Amin et al, Amin et al discloses wherein the textured region comprises a surface roughness greater than or equal to 200 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm (ABSTRACT).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) and of Hart et al (US 20220011466) in view of Myers et al (US 20130323468)
Regarding Claim 10,
Feng et al and Hart et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Feng et al and Hart et al does not disclose wherein the textured region comprises a peak to valley greater than or equal to 1000 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm.
Myers et al discloses wherein the textured region comprises a peak to valley greater than or equal to 1000 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm [0119]. One would have recognized wherein the textured region comprises a peak to valley greater than or equal to 1000 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm as a result effective variable to obtain the desired degree of surface scattering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al and Hart et al to include Myers et al’s textured region comprises a peak to valley greater than or equal to 1000 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm motivated by the desire to obtain the desired degree of surfaced scattering.
Claim(s) 14,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) and of Hart et al (US 20220011466) in view of Gollier et al (US 9701579)
Regarding Claim 14,
Feng et al and Hart et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Feng et al and Hart et al does not disclose wherein the substrate is an ion-exchanged substrate which comprises a surface compressive stress (CS) greater than or equal to 250 MPa, and a depth of compression (DOC) greater than or equal to 0.1 µm.
Gollier et al discloses wherein the substrate is an ion-exchanged substrate which comprises a surface compressive stress (CS) greater than or equal to 250 MPa, and a depth of compression (DOC) greater than or equal to 0.1 µm. (column 9 lines 35-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al and Hart et al to include Gollier et al’s substrate is an ion-exchanged substrate which comprises a surface compressive stress (CS) greater than or equal to 250 MPa, and a depth of compression (DOC) greater than or equal to 0.1 µm (column 9 lines 35-65) motivated by the desire to mechanically strengthen antiglare display substrates.
Regarding Claim 19,
In addition to Feng et al, Hart et al and Gollier et al, Gollier et al discloses wherein the antiglare article serves as a protective cover for the display device [0006].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) and of Hart et al (US 20220011466) in view of (WO 2015179739 A1)
Regarding Claim 17,
Feng et al and Hart et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Feng et al and Hart et al does not disclose an optical coating disposed on the primary surface, wherein the optical coating is a gradient coating.
(WO 2015179739 A1) discloses an optical coating disposed on the primary surface, wherein the optical coating is a gradient coating [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al and Hart et al to include (WO 2015179739 A1)’s optical coating disposed on the primary surface, wherein the optical coating is a gradient coating motivated by the desire to control refractive index while retaining mechanical durability.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (US 20220009824) and of Hart et al (US 20220011466) in view of Botelho et al (US 20110129665)
Regarding Claim 18,
Feng et al and Hart et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Feng et al and Hart et al does not disclose a surface-modifying layer disposed on the primary surface, wherein the surface-modifying layer is one of an anti-smudge or easy-to-clean coating layer.
Botelho et al discloses (ABSTRACT) a surface-modifying layer disposed on the primary surface, wherein the surface-modifying layer is one of an anti-smudge or easy-to-clean coating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feng et al and Hart et al to include Botelho et al’s surface-modifying layer disposed on the primary surface, wherein the surface-modifying layer is one of an anti-smudge or easy-to-clean coating layer motivated by the desire to keep the screen clean from smudges.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Regarding Claim 20,
Borelli et al (US 20120300307 A1)A display article comprising: a substrate comprising a thickness and a primary surface, the primary surface having on at least a portion thereon a textured region [0028-0031].
Borelli et al does not disclose the texture region comprising a high spatial frequency sub-region having a period: period = λ/(Sin[ArcTan(Psp/t)]*n) with an allowable variation of 8 µm or 60%, where t is a thickness of the substrate, n is an average refractive index of the substrate, Psp is a subpixel period, and λ is a pixel light wavelength.
Kean et al (US 20040218245 A1) discloses sin α = n sin[arcan(p/2s)] [0016-0017].
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to combine or include more references to disclose the texture region comprising a high spatial frequency sub-region having a period: period = λ/(Sin[ArcTan(Psp/t)]*n) with an allowable variation of 8 µm or 60%, where t is a thickness of the substrate, n is an average refractive index of the substrate, Psp is a subpixel period, and λ is a pixel light wavelength because there is no motivation to do so.
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