DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22-27 are currently pending, of which claims 24-27 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 5, 15, 17, 19-20, and 22 are currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 is cancelled however includes a “T” which appears to be a typographical error. Claim 15 is indicated as “Currently Amended” however does not appear to have any amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0143638) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0346887) herein after Park ‘887 and Park et al. (WO 2018/135917) herein after Park ‘917.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 15, and 17, Park discloses a window member for a display device comprising a display module (Fig. 3A, B). The window member according to an embodiment comprising a first impact absorbing layer (SAL1; instant first base layer), a second impact absorbing layer disposed below the first impact absorbing layer (SAL2; instant second base layer) and a first hard coating layer (HC1) directly between the impact absorbing layers (Fig. 8D), and base member (SUB1; instant base film) disposed above the first impact absorbing layer and functional layer FL which may be disposed on a second hard coating layer (HC2; instant functional layer containing a hard coating agent) disposed above the base film (Fig. 8D). The first and second impact absorbing layers may include the same material (0117).
From Park:
PNG
media_image1.png
338
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not disclose an adhesive layer directly between the first impact absorbing layer and the base film.
Park ‘887, in the analogous field of display devices (0005), teaches and adhesive film provided between an impact absorbing layer and a substrate (0076).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the window member of Park to include an adhesive between a substrate layer and impact absorbing layer, as taught by Park ‘887, to bond the layers together (0076).
Proposed combination of Park and Park ‘887:
PNG
media_image2.png
338
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park further does not disclose the impact absorbing layers being a polymer film comprising polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, or polyethylene naphthalate.
Park ‘917, discloses a shock-absorbing composite sheet for electronic devices (0001-0003). The sheet comprising an impact absorbing layer which is a polymer foam such as polyamide, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, or polycarbonate (0057).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the impact-absorbing layers of Park to include a foam as taught by Park ‘917, to provide improved shock-absorption (0008).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Park teaches the first impact absorbing layer having a thickness of about 50 µm (0104), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 30 micrometers to about 100 µm.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the second impact absorbing layer having a thickness of equal to or greater than about 45 µm and equal to or less than about 55 µm (0118), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 30 to about 200 µm.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the hard coating layer having a thickness of equal to or greater than about 5 µm and equal to or less than about 10 µm (0105), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 5 to about 25 µm.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the hard coating including acryl-based and epoxy-based compound (0106).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Park teaches that the functional layer may be a single layer anti-finger coating layer on the second hard coating layer (0125).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches the device divided in a folding area which is folded with respect to a folding axis in one direction and a non-folding area adjacent to the folding area (Fig. 2A, B).
Regarding claim 20, Park ‘917, discloses impact absorbing layer which is a polymer foam such as polyamide, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, or polycarbonate (0057) as discussed above. Park teaches the second impact absorbing layer having a thickness of equal to or greater than about 45 µm and equal to or less than about 55 µm (0118), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 30 to about 200 µm.
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches the hard coating including acryl-based and epoxy-based compound (0106) and having a thickness of equal to or greater than about 5 µm and equal to or less than about 10 µm (0105), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 5 to about 25 µm.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed in claims 4, 6, 8, 19-20 and 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Park teaches the functional layer disposed on the second hard-coating layer (uppermost surface) and comprises an anti-finger coating (0125).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Park ‘887 and Park ‘917 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0046220).
Regarding claim 2, modified Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Park does not disclose a suitable light transmittance or haze for the window.
Kim, in the analogous field of display devices (0002), teaches a window substrate for the display device having a transmittance of 90% or more and haze of 1.0% or smaller (0099 and 0101).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the window of Park to have a light transmittance of 90% or more and haze of 1% or less to maximize the image from a display device (0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/23/2025 have been entered. Accordingly, the 112(d) rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments that Park ‘739 does not teach or suggest a base layer comprising polyamide, PET, polyacrylate, PMMA, polycarbonate or polyethylene naphthalate have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park et al. (WO 2018/135917).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781