DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0056056, “Ahn”) in view of Fujimoto et al. (US 2017/0306188, “Fujimoto”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Ahn teaches a flexible display device ([0005] – [0007]) having a window cover film comprising a substrate layer ([0011]), a hard coat layer on a surface thereof ([0011]), and an antifouling layer over the hard coat layer ([0011]). Ahn teaches that the antifouling layer may comprise a fluorine-containing alkoxysilane component ([0011], fluorine-containing silsesquioxane). Ahn additionally teaches that the film may have a water contact angle of greater than 90o after a wear resistance test ([0101] and see [0170] – [0173]). The Examiner notes that the wear resistance test and measurement tools described by Ahn appear to be substantially similar to those claimed and that are used int eh present specification (please see PG Pub US 2022/0411662, [0179] – [0181]) and thus the water contact angle of greater than 100o described by Ahn would be expected to be substantially similar to the claimed water contact angle of 90o or more. Ahn fails to teach the inclusion of an adhesion enhancement layer, however in the same field of endeavor of hard coat films (e.g., [0004]), Fujimoto teaches to include an adhesion enhancement film or an anchor coat layer in order to improve adhesion between the adjacent layers ([0062] – [0073]). Fujimoto additionally teaches that such an anchor layer may include a functionalized alkoxysilane compound ([0073]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included an anchor film between the hard coat layer and the antifouling layer of Ahn in order to improve the adhesion between those two layers (Fujimoto, [0062] – [0073]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Ahn additionally teaches that the functional group may be an organofunctional group such as an epoxy group (see Fujimoto [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Ahn additionally teaches that the fluorine-containing alkoxysilane may contain a perfluoropolyether group (e.g., [0104]) and a hydrolysable group (e.g., epoxy group, [0099], [0102]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ahn additionally teaches that het hard coating layer may comprise an alkoxysilane having an epoxy group and wherein the alkoxysilane may be a silsesquioxane resin having an epoxy group ([0011], [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn additionally teaches that the hard coating layer may include a crosslinking agent having a polyfunctional epoxy group ([0015]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Minamidate et al. (US 2017/0341451, “Minamidate”).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn fails to specifically teach the dynamic friction of the cover film. In the same field of endeavor of hard coat layers having anti-fouling properties ([0030], [0006]), Minamidate teaches that it is useful to have a dynamic coefficient of friction of less than 0.02 in order to provide the surface with satisfactory finger slidability for use in a touch screen or the like ([0243], [0244]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the film of Ahn with a dynamic coefficient of friction on that range in order to provide the surface with satisfactory finger slidability for use in a touch screen or the like ([0243], [0244]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0174161, “Ahn ‘161”).
Regarding claims 10-12, Ahn fails to specifically teach that the substrate is made of a polyimide. However, in the same field of endeavor of hard coating layers and films ([0003] – [0006]), Ahn ‘161 teaches a substrate layer including a polyimide that includes a fluorine-containing aromatic diamine ([0017]), a unit derived from an aromatic dianhydride ([0018]), a unit derived from an aromatic diacid dichloride ([0051], [0052]), and a unit derived from a cycloaliphatic dianhydride ([0018]). Ahn ‘161 teaches that this polyimide resin substrate provides good optical properties (e.g., light transmission and refractive index properties) and good mechanical properties ([0012] – [0014], [0044], [0045]). It therefore would have been obvious to have substituted the substrate of Ahn ‘161 for that of Ahn in order to obtain the good optical properties (e.g., light transmission and refractive index properties) and good mechanical properties described by Ahn ‘161 ([0012] – [0014], [0044], [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ahn teaches away from the inclusion of a bonding improvement layer between the antifouling layer and the hard coat layer because Ahn teaches that bonding is improved between the two layers. Applicant’s remarks 8/13/25, p. 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that such an improvement means that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider further improvement in bonding between the layers. Ahn appears to teach that the bonding between the layers is an important features to prevent curling and therefore the ordinarily skilled artisan would continue to seek improvement in this area. Additionally, Ahn teaches that additional layers may be placed between each layer. Because this implies situations where further improvement to the bonding of the layers may be useful (i.e., where the invention does not already provide for improved adhesion between the layers, [0042]), it is reasonable that the ordinarily skilled artisan would seek to improve bonding between the hard coat and antifouling layers or in alternative embodiments where additional layers exist between the hard coat layer and the antifouling layer of Ahn.
Applicant argues that Fujimoto teaches that its anchor layer may only be applied between a substrate and a hard coat layer (i.e., not between a hard coat layer and an antifouling layer). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this limiting interpretation of the references. Fujimoto teaches a specific example of including an anchor coat between a hard coat layer and an additional layer ([0062]). It is not apparent why the ordinarily skilled artisan would not find this teaching useful to apply between a hard coat layer and an antifouling layer (or other additional layer). Fujimoto describes that anchor layers are well known in the art, are not particularly limited, and may be adjusted (Fujimoto, [0072] – [0078]). Further, Fujimoto teaches that it is known to include silane coupling agents, which, consistent with the description of improved adhesion by Ahn ([0102]), would improve the adhesion between layers having siloxane groups (Fujimoto, [0074], [0075]) and thus would improve the adhesion between the siloxane-including hard coat and antifouling layers of the laminate of Ahn (Ahn, e.g., [0011]). The Examiner maintains that the ordinarily skilled artisan would therefore have found the inclusion of such an anchor layer between the hard coat and antifouling layers of the laminate of Ahn obvious.
Applicant argues that Ahn fails to teach the claimed water contact angle. However, as described above, Ahn teaches that the film may have a water contact angle of greater than 90o after a wear resistance test ([0101] and see [0170] – [0173]). The wear resistance test and measurement tools described by Ahn appear to be substantially similar to those claimed and that are used int eh present specification (please see PG Pub US 2022/0411662, [0179] – [0181]) and thus the water contact angle of greater than 100o described by Ahn would be expected to be substantially similar to the claimed water contact angle of 90o or more.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 20 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782