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Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22-27 are currently pending, of which claims 24-27 are withdrawn.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 and 17 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite that the second base layer has a modulus of about 3.5 GPa to about 7.0 GPa. Applicant points to support in paragraph 00111 of the specification; however, paragraph 00111 teaches that the films are polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate films. Thus, the specification does not provide support for the second base layer having a modulus of about 3.5-7.0 GPa across all film compositions for the base layer.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected as being dependent upon unsupported claims 1 or 17.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22-23 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recites the second base layer having a “modulus” it is unclear what “modulus” is being referred to. Polymeric materials have several different properties which include “modulus” such as e.g., Young’s Modulus, Elastic Modulus, Shear Modulus ect. It is unclear if the modulus is referring to a singular modulus property of the base layer or if all possible modulus properties are required to have the claimed range.
For sake of further examination, any singular modulus properties within the claimed range will be viewed as meeting the limitations of the claimed “modulus.”
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 13-15, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claims 1 or 17.
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, 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).
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 first impact absorbing layer being a polymer film comprising polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, or polyethylene naphthalate or the second impact absorbing layer having a modulus of about 3.5 GPa to about 7.0 GPa.
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 first and second impact-absorbing layers of Park to include a foam as taught by Park ‘917, to provide improved shock-absorption (0008).
Park ‘917 teaches the foam including polyimide foam (0057), polyimide is exemplified as having a modulus of about 3.5 GPa to about 7.0 GPa (specification paragraph 00111).
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
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 5, Park ‘917 teaches the foam including polyamide, polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, or polycarbonate (0057).
As evidenced by MatWeb, polycarbonate has a “modulus” e.g., modulus of elasticity or flexural modulus overlapping the claimed range of about 3.5-7.0 GPa.
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 05/01/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Park teaches the second impact absorbing layer SAL2 having a modulus equal to or greater than about 45 mPa and equal to or less than about 50 MPa and that Park ‘917 also does not teach a modulus of 3.5 to 7.0 GPa.
Park teaches a low storage modulus (0117). As noted in the 112(b) rejection above, it is not clear what “modulus” property the claims are intending to claim. Thus, the “modulus” is viewed as any singular modulus property. Park ‘917 is combined with Park and motivates a foam material for the impact absorbing layer. Polyimide foam is disclosed as one material (Park ‘917: 0057). As polyimide is disclosed as an exemplary material having a “modulus” of about 3.5-7.0 (specification 00111). The polyimide of Park ‘917 is expected to have a modulus overlapping the claimed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights