DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amie et al. (WO 2021/177288). US 20230311456 is the National Stage PG-Pub of the application and is used as the translation since specification is translated as-is into English. See MPEP 1893.01(d).
Amie discloses an optical laminate and display device thereof. Concerning claims 1-3 and 7, Amie discloses the optical laminate (FIG. 4; para. 0041-0400) comprises an ultrathin glass substrate having a thickness from 15 to 100 microns (element 2; para. 0180-0185), a primer layer having a thickness from 0.1 to 10 microns (element 5; para. 0282-0286), a first resin layer comprising polyimide or polyamideimide having a thickness of 5 to 60 microns (element 3; para. 0063-0179), and a functional coating having a thickness of 2 to 50 microns and pencil hardness preferably of 2H or more (element 4; para. 0186-0270). As such, the thickness ratio d2/d1, wherein d2 is the sum total thickness of the primer, resin layer, and hard coat and d1 is the thickness of the substrate, would include and encompass the claimed ratio. Further, since the materials are the same as that claimed, the pencil hardness of the laminate would result in the claimed pencil hardness. The above layers in combination with each other serve to provide improved impact resistance and flexibility to the glass (para. 0007-0021). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coating structure onto all exposed surfaces, including the side surfaces of the ultrathin glass sheet, in order to provide maximum impact resistance to the resulting optical laminate. Regarding claim 4, the total thickness of the optical laminate as shown above include and encompass the claimed range.
Regarding claims 1 and 8 in combination, the limitations are met by a different optical laminate embodiment (FIG. 8; para. 0318-0400) wherein in this instance, Figure 8 is relied upon as the basis for this combination. In regards to claims 1 and 8, the ultrathin glass substrate has a thickness from 15 to 100 microns (element 12; para. 0361-0362), a first resin layer having a thickness of 5 to 60 microns (element 13; para. 0282-0286 and 0329-0346), a second resin layer having a thickness of 1 to 100 microns (element 14; para. 0348-0353), a third resin layer having a thickness of 0.5 to 30 microns and has an elastic modulus from 2.8 to 4 GPa (element 15; para. 0354-0360), and a hard coating layer having a thickness of 2 to 50 microns and a pencil hardness of 2H or greater (element 16; para. 0363-0368 and 0186-0270). The second resin layer is considered to be equivalent to the primer layer, the third resin layer is considered to be equivalent to the base resin layer, and the hard coating layer is considered equivalent to the functional layer as claimed. As such, the thickness ratio d2/d1, wherein d2 is the sum total thickness of the second resin layer (primer), third resin layer (base resin layer), and hard coat (functional layer) and d1 is the thickness of the substrate, would include and encompass the claimed ratio. Further, since the materials are the same as that claimed, the pencil hardness of the laminate would result in the claimed pencil hardness. The above layers in combination with each other serve to provide improved impact resistance and flexibility to the glass (para. 0007-0021). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coating structure onto all exposed surfaces, including the side surfaces of the ultrathin glass sheet, in order to provide maximum impact resistance to the resulting optical laminate.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amie et al. (WO 2021/177288) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 20130203936).
Amie discloses the above, including the use of a polyurethane resin the primer layer (para. 0284). However, Amie is silent to the polyurethane being waterborne and the heat stabilizers as claimed.
Fujita discloses aqueous polyurethane resins and coatings thereof. With respect to the waterborne polyurethane that is heat stabilized, Fujita discloses an aqueous dispersion comprising a polyurethane resin and a phosphorous-based flame retardant and an antioxidant that is phosphorus-, sulfur-, or phenol-based (abstract; para. 0057-0067). The flame-retardant is considered equivalent to the claimed secondary heat stabilizer and the antioxidant is considered to be equivalent to the primary heat stabilizer. The composition as disclosed by Fujita provides an environmentally friendly composition that has heat and thermal resistance (para. 0115). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the aqueous polyurethane composition of Fujita as the polyurethane material for the primer layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights