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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that claim 8 was not explicitly discussed in the Non-final Office Action mailed 2 January 2026. However, the limitations of claim 8 were addressed in the rejection of claim 11. Therefore, the subject matter recited in claim 8 has been previously rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Publication 2020-0047125 to Sung et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Sung, see machine translation) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0289324 to Yeo et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Yeo).
Regarding claim 1, Sung teaches a display device (paragraph 0001) comprising a display unit and a flexible window film (paragraph 0115) corresponding to the display module and window module recited in the instant claims, respectively. Sung teaches that the flexible window film comprises a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034), and Figs 1 and 2 of Sung show that hard coat layer 120 is disposed on an outer surface of the window film (paragraphs 0034 and 0106).
Sung is silent as to there being an electronic module that overlaps the display unit and a coating layer disposed on the outer surface of the display unit.
Regarding the electronic module, Yeo teaches an electronic device comprising a cover glass with a display unit disposed thereunder (abstract). Yeo teaches that the device can include a camera module (paragraph 0047) corresponding to the electronic module recited in the instant claims. Yeo teaches that the provided with a rear member through which an opening has been made, and the camera module can be inserted into this opening and exposed through the display unit and cover glass (Fig 7B and paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sung to include the camera and rear member of Yeo because it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, namely adding a camera without a separate cover window assembly. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the coating layer, Sung teaches the use of a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to include a hard coat layer on its outermost side away from the window film because it would provide excellent hardness and scratch resistance (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 µm (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer has a refractive index of 1.45 to 1.6 (paragraph 0047) and that the refractive index of the base layer of the window film is higher than that of the hard coat layer (paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 5, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the window film, which includes the hard coat layer, has a haze of 1% or less (paragraph 0030).
Sung is silent as to the haze of the window film and display unit together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to have the haze of the window film, 1% or less, because it is the desired haze for transparent display devices (paragraph 0030). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device of Sung as modified according to Yeo would require a transparent display unit because the camera module is covered by the display unit.
Regarding claim 6, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer can be formed from at least one of a (meth)acrylic resin or a siloxane resin (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claims 7-12, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that a layer can be formed between the hard coat layer and the substrate layer of the window film, and that there is an adhesive layer on the other side of the substrate layer (Fig 2 and paragraph 0106). Sung teaches that the display unit can include a substrate, an OLED, LED, or LCD formed on the substrate, and a lower substrate (paragraph 0116) corresponding to the first film, display panel, and second film recited in the instant claims. Furthermore, Sung as modified to also include a hard coat layer on the display unit would meet the limitations of having a first and second coating layer.
Sung is silent as to the preferred materials of the substrates; however, where Sung does discuss substrate layers and their suitable materials in the device, Sung teaches that the window film substrate can be made from resin films including polyethylene terephthalate or polyimide (paragraph 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the films of the display unit of Sung to be the materials taught by Sung because they are suitable as materials for a substrate. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung and Yeo as applied above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0373281 to Park et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Park).
Regarding claim 13, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the window film substrate layer can be made from materials including polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0037) and can be made from multiple layers (paragraph 0040).
Sung is silent as to one of the layers of the substrate layer being glass.
Park teaches a flexible display device having a display panel and a cover window disposed thereon (abstract). Park teaches that cover window includes multiple layers (paragraphs 0036-0037) and that one of the layers can be glass (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the substrate layers of Sung to be glass as taught by Park because it would be able to absorb external impacts and protect the display unit below (paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Yeo and Park.
Regarding claim 14, Sung teaches a display device (paragraph 0001) comprising a display unit and a flexible window film (paragraph 0115) corresponding to the display module and window module recited in the instant claims, respectively. Sung teaches that the flexible window film comprises a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034) corresponding to the coating layer recited in the instant claims, and Figs 1 and 2 of Sung show that hard coat layer 120 is disposed on an outer surface of the window film (paragraphs 0034 and 0106). Sung teaches that the display device can fold (paragraph 0045). Sung teaches that the display unit can include a substrate corresponding to the first film recited in the instant claims, an OLED, LED, or LCD formed on the substrate, and a lower substrate (paragraph 0116).
Sung is silent as to there being an electronic module that overlaps the display unit, a coating layer disposed on the outer surface of the display unit, and the device having a folding axis, folding region, and non-folding region.
Regarding the electronic module, Yeo teaches an electronic device comprising a cover glass with a display unit disposed thereunder (abstract). Yeo teaches that the device can include a camera module (paragraph 0047) corresponding to the electronic module recited in the instant claims. Yeo teaches that the provided with a rear member through which an opening has been made, and the camera module can be inserted into this opening and exposed through the display unit and cover glass (Fig 7B and paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sung to include the camera and rear member of Yeo because it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, namely adding a camera without a separate cover window assembly. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the coating layer, Sung teaches the use of a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to include a hard coat layer on its outermost side away from the window film because it would provide excellent hardness and scratch resistance (paragraph 0054).
Regarding the folding of the device, Park teaches a flexible display device having a display panel and a cover window disposed thereon (abstract). Fig 3 of Park shows the display device in a folded state wherein there is a folding area between two non-folding areas with respect to a folding axis (paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sung to have the folding characteristics of Park because it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 15, Sung, Yeo, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 µm (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 16, Sung, Yeo, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer has a refractive index of 1.45 to 1.6 (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 17, Sung, Yeo, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the window film, which includes the hard coat layer, has a haze of 1% or less (paragraph 0030).
Sung is silent as to the haze of the window film and display unit together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to have the haze of the window film, 1% or less, because it is the desired haze for transparent display devices (paragraph 0030). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device of Sung as modified according to Yeo would require a transparent display unit because the camera module is covered by the display unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sung to have the folding characteristics of Park because it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Yeo.
Regarding claim 18, Sung teaches a display device (paragraph 0001) comprising a display unit and a flexible window film (paragraph 0115) corresponding to the display module and window module recited in the instant claims, respectively. Sung teaches that the flexible window film comprises a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034) corresponding to the coating layer recited in the instant claims, and Figs 1 and 2 of Sung show that hard coat layer 120 is disposed on an outer surface of the window film (paragraphs 0034 and 0106). Sung teaches that the display device can fold (paragraph 0045). Sung teaches that the display unit can include a substrate corresponding to the first film recited in the instant claims, an OLED, LED, or LCD formed on the substrate, and a lower substrate (paragraph 0116).
Sung is silent as to there being an electronic module that overlaps the display unit, a coating layer disposed on the outer surface of the display unit, and the haze of the display unit.
Regarding the electronic module, Yeo teaches an electronic device comprising a cover glass with a display unit disposed thereunder (abstract). Yeo teaches that the device can include a camera module (paragraph 0047) corresponding to the electronic module recited in the instant claims. Yeo teaches that the provided with a rear member through which an opening has been made, and the camera module can be inserted into this opening and exposed through the display unit and cover glass (Fig 7B and paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sung to include the camera and rear member of Yeo because it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, namely adding a camera without a separate cover window assembly. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the coating layer, Sung teaches the use of a hard coat layer (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to include a hard coat layer on its outermost side away from the window film because it would provide excellent hardness and scratch resistance (paragraph 0054).
Regarding the haze of the display unit, Sung teaches that the window film, which includes the hard coat layer, has a haze of 1% or less (paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display unit of Sung to have the haze of the window film, 1% or less, because it is the desired haze for transparent display devices (paragraph 0030). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device of Sung as modified according to Yeo would require a transparent display unit because the camera module is covered by the display unit.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung and Yeo as applied above and in further view of Park.
Regarding claim 19, Sung and Yeo teach all the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the display device can fold (paragraph 0045). Sung teaches that the display unit can include a substrate corresponding to the film recited in the instant claims, an OLED, LED, or LCD formed on the substrate, and a lower substrate (paragraph 0116). Sung teaches that the window film substrate layer can be made from materials including polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 0037) and can be made from multiple layers (paragraph 0040). Sung teaches that there can be a layer disposed between the substrate layer and the hard coat layer (paragraph 0106). Furthermore, Sung as modified to also include a hard coat layer on the display unit would meet the limitations of having a first and second coating layer.
Sung is silent as to one of the layers of the substrate layer being glass.
Regarding the substrate layer being glass, Park teaches a flexible display device having a display panel and a cover window disposed thereon (abstract). Park teaches that cover window includes multiple layers (paragraphs 0036-0037) and that one of the layers can be glass (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the substrate layers of Sung to be glass as taught by Park because it would be able to absorb external impacts and protect the display unit below (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 20, Sung, Yeo, and Park teach all the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above.
Sung teaches that the hard coat layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 µm (paragraph 0046).
Response to Amendment
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 1 April 2026, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been updated.
Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sung does not teach a coating layer disposed on the display unit (Remarks, pages 10-12). As discussed above, while Sung does not explicitly teach a hard coat layer on the display unit, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add such a hard coat layer.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights