Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/717,588

WINDOW AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 11, 2022
Examiner
AHMED, SHEEBA
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
SK Microworks Solutions Co. Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
890 granted / 1105 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1105 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 29, 2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment 3. Amendments to claims 1, 13, 22, and 23 are entered in the above-identified application. Claims 2, 7, 14, and 21 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-20, 22-25 are pending and under consideration. 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. 4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0053138 A1). Lee et al. disclose a window film (equivalent to the window of the claimed invention) includes a base layer (equivalent to the base layer of the claimed invention) and a coating layer formed on the base layer (equivalent to the bonding layer of the claimed invention). The coating layer contains a silicone resin (equivalent to the polysiloxane of the claimed invention). Lee et al. further discloses a display which includes the window film and may be a flexible display. FIG. 1 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a window film. Referring to FIG. 1, a window film 100 may include a base layer 110 and a coating layer 120 formed on the base layer 110. The window film 100 may have a haze of about 3% or less, for example, about 0.1% (meeting the limitations of claim 11). The window film 100 may have a thickness of about 50 μm to about 300 μm and the base layer 110 may improve the mechanical strength of the window film 100 by supporting the coating layer 120, and may be attached to a display device (for example, an organic light emitting device) via an adhesive layer. The base layer 110 may be formed of at least one of a polyester resin (such as polyethylene terephthalate (meeting the limitations of claim 16), polyethylene naphthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polybutylene naphthalate resins or the like), polycarbonate resins, poly(meth)acrylate resins (such as polymethylmethacrylate resins or the like), polystyrene resins, and/or polyimide resins (meeting the limitations of claim 3). The window film 100 may have a thickness ratio of the base layer 110 to the coating layer 120 in a specified range to improve the mechanical strength of the window film 100 while also preventing (or reducing) visible yellowing. For example, the thickness ratio of the base layer 110 to the coating layer 120 (i.e., thickness of the base layer 110: thickness of the coating layer 120) ranges from about 1:1 to about 5:1, for example, about 1.5:1 to about 3:1. The base layer 110 may have a thickness of about 10 μm to about 200 μm (meeting the limitations of claim 9). In some embodiments, the coating layer 120 may be formed directly on the base layer 110. The expression, “formed directly on,” means that there are no intervening layers (such as adhesive layers, bonding layers or the like) between the coating layer 120 and the base layer 110. The coating layer 120 may be formed of a composition for coating layers that includes a silicone resin. The silicone resin may be cured to form a matrix of the coating layer and impart flexibility to the coating layer 120 while also improving the hardness of the coating layer 120. The silicone resin may include a siloxane resin containing a UV curable group. The composition for the coating layer may further include a curable monomer and an initiator. The curable monomer can improve the hardness of the coating layer by crosslinking with the silicone resin, and can improve processability by controlling the viscosity of the composition. Although not shown in FIG. 1, the coating layer 120 may also be formed on a lower side of the base layer 110, or on both the upper and lower sides of the base layer 110. In addition, although not shown in FIG. 1, a surface treatment layer (such as an antireflective layer, anti-glare layer, hard coating layer (equivalent to the hard coating layer of the claimed invention and meeting the limitation that there is a single layer of the hard coating layer) and/or the like) may be further formed on the other side of the coating layer 120 to provide additional functions to the window film 100. Also, an adhesive layer may be further formed on the other side of the base layer 110 to adhere the window film to a display device (for example, an organic light emitting device). In some embodiments, the adhesive layer may be formed of a composition for adhesive layers, which includes a (meth)acrylic. In some embodiments, the display may be a flexible display. The flexible display may include a window film. The flexible display may include: a substrate; a member for apparatuses disposed on an upper side of the substrate; and the window film described above disposed on an upper side of the member for apparatuses. Here, the member for apparatuses may include organic light emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or the like (meeting the limitations of claims 13 and 22). For example, the flexible display may include: a substrate; a member for apparatuses disposed on an upper side of the substrate; a touchscreen panel disposed on an upper side of the member for apparatuses; a polarizing plate disposed on an upper side of the touchscreen panel; and a window film disposed on an upper side of the polarizing plate. Referring to FIG. 5, an organic light emitting diode display 500 according to embodiments of the invention may include: a substrate 10; a buffer layer 25 formed on an upper side of the substrate 10; a gate electrode 41 formed on an upper side of the buffer layer 25; and a gate insulating layer 40 formed between the gate electrode 41 and the buffer layer 25. An active layer 35 including source and drain regions 31, 33 is formed in the gate insulating layer 40. An interlayer insulating layer 51, through which source and drain electrodes 52, 53 are formed, is formed on an upper side of the gate insulating layer 40, and a passivation layer 61 including a contact hole 62, a first electrode 70 and a pixel layer 80 are formed on an upper side of the interlayer insulating layer 51. An organic light emitting layer 71 and a second electrode 72 are formed on an upper side of the pixel layer 80; an encapsulation layer 81 is formed on an upper side of the second electrode 72; and a window film 82 is formed on an upper side of the encapsulation layer 81. (see Abstract and paragraphs 0017-0058, 0033-0044, 0049-0060, and 0076-0080). With regards to the limitation that there is a folding area that is folded with respect to a folding axis extending in a direction; and a non-folding area adjacent to the folding area, the Examiner takes the position that such a limitation is inherent in the foldable display taught by Lee et al. given that Lee et al. specifically state that their display device is foldable. With regards to the thickness of the bonding layer and the hard coating layer and the order of the layers, the Examiner would like to point out that thicknesses and layer arrangements are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties. With regards to the limitation that the support module comprises a support plate including openings that correspond to the folding area, the Examiner takes the position that the shape of the support module is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. 5. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0053138 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0349052 A1). Lee et al, as discussed above, do not teach that the hard coating layer comprises a fluorine- based compound. However, Kim et al. disclose a hard coating composition comprising a fluororesin. A hard coating layer with a fluororesin has advantages of being able to prevent yellowing from UV. (see Abstract and paragraphs 0006-0014 and 0033). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a fluororesin in the hard coating layer taught by Lee et al. given that Kim et al. specifically teach that such a hard coating layer prevents yellowing from UV radiation. 6. Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0053138 A1) in view of Everaerts et al. (US 2013/0271828 A1). Lee et al, as discussed above, do not teach that an optical bonding layer is disposed directly on a lower surface of the base layer and the optical bonding layer including a polyurethane resin. However, Everaerts et al. disclose an optical bonding layer used to bond an optical film using a liquid optically clear adhesive positioned adjacent the optical film. Optical bonding is used to adhere together two optical elements using an optical grade bonding composition in display applications - optical bonding may be used to adhere together optical elements such as display panels, glass plates, touch panels, diffusers, rigid compensators, and flexible films such as polarizers and retarders. Examples of suitable optical bonding layers include high modulus and high adhesion polyurethane adhesives. (see Abstract and paragraphs 0003, 004, 0039-0042). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use polyurethane optical bonding layer in the structure taught by Lee et al. given that Everaerts et al. specifically teach that such materials are employed for the adhesive bonding of display devices and have a high modulus and high adhesion. Response to Arguments 7. Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants traverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 and state that Lee explicitly discusses that the window film (100) can only be used within their disclosed thickness range, thereby excluding ranges outside of that scope. Applicants further state that the present application discloses that when the bonding layer has a thickness of about 0.1-1 µm, the adhesion strength between the hard coating layer and the base layer can be enhanced, demonstrating a remarkable technical effect attributable to this specific numerical range of thickness and the window of the present application, which includes a bonding layer having a thickness of 0.1-1 µm between the hard coating layer and the base layer, the overall thickness does not become excessively large. As a result, Applicant's argue that their disclosed window exhibits excellent optical characteristics, such as high transmittance and low reflectance. However, as pointed out above, the Examiner would like to point out that thicknesses and layer arrangements are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties and a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Furthermore, as to the assertion of unexpected results for the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. The specification presents no factual evidence to show that results were actually unexpected in comparison to the results in the prior art. The Examiner invites the Applicants to clarify the unexpected showing and present claims that are in fact commensurate in scope with any such showing. Allowable Subject Matter 8. Claims 6, 16, 19, and 22-25 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. Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm. 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 on 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. /SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 14, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 28, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 06, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600883
PROCESS TO SYNTHESIZE/INTEGRATE DURABLE/ROBUST LOW SURFACE ENERGY "HYDROPHOBIC" DROPWISE CONDENSATION PROMOTER COATINGS ON METAL AND METAL OXIDE SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594750
TEXTILE FABRIC AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595362
Polypropylene Resin Composition with Excellent Flame Retardancy and Formability
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590365
HYDROPHILIC ANTI FOG FILM LAYER, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND APPLICATION AND PRODUCT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590196
LAMINATED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+14.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1105 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month