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, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109036132, “Wang” a machine copy of which is provided and used as the citation copy unless otherwise noted) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 107067979, “Xiao” a machine copy of which is provided and used as the citation copy unless otherwise noted).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Wang teaches a display device (p.3) comprising a display or screen layer (e.g., Fig. 100, display layer 130, p. 3) having a cover layer (Fig. 100, layer 120) and an underlying buffer laminate (Fig. 100, buffer layer group 101, p. 3). Wang teaches the inclusion of a substrate under the buffer layer (substrate 160, Fig. 100, p. 4). Wang teaches that the buffer layer may include buffer shapes and that between the buffer shapes are cavities that are exposed at the top and bottom (see Fig. 100, below, wherein the space, L1, between shapes is exposed to the underlying layer 160). In this way, the buffer structures of Wang (i.e., 141a, 141b, Fig. 100) may be considered to be partition walls in the buffer layer. Wang additionally teaches that the buffer members may have any of various shapes, including a rectangular shape (p. 4 first full paragraph). The Examiner notes that, with regard to the shape of the buffer layer spaces or chambers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang fails to specifically teach that the buffer layer cushioning components comprise a chamber but in the same field of endeavor of display devices having buffer layers (e.g., pp. 1-2), Xiao teaches to make such components hollow structures (see Xiao, pp. 2-3, 6) and that such hollow structures in a buffer layer improve the flexibility of the display device, to limit the bending curvature of the display device, and improve the impact absorption properties of the device (pp. 2-3, 6). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have provided such chamber or hollow structures of the buffer layer of Xiao to the buffer layer cushion structures of Wang in order to improve the flexibility of the display device, to limit the bending curvature of the display device, and to improve the impact absorption properties of the device (pp. 2-3, 6).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, modified Wang additionally teaches that the hollow structures of the buffer layer may be made via an etching process (e.g., Xiao, p. 10). It should be noted that claims 9 and 18 include product-by-process limitations. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Please see MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xiao as applied to claims 2 and 11, above, and further in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 2016/0359138, “Ishiguro”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Wang fails to specifically teach the makeup of the substrate layer of the buffer film. In the same field of endeavor of buffer layers for display devices ([0002] – [0005]), Ishiguro teaches an organic resin substrate layer may be made of various resin materials including polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate and may have a thickness on the range of from 5 to 250 micrometers (e.g., [0019]). It therefore would have been obvious to have attempted the use of such a layer for the substrate of the buffer layer of Wang as it is known in the art to be a suitable substrate and thickness for use in display device applications that maintains bendability and strength (Ishiguro, e.g., [0019], [0020], and see [0043] – [0046]).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 14-16, Wang fails to specifically teach the makeup of the buffer material, however Ishiguro teaches a suitable buffer material is a silicone or siloxane material (e.g., [0008], [0031], may include, e.g., silica), having a thickness on the range of from 25 to 500 micrometers, and an elastic modulus on the range of from 10 kPa to 10 MPa ([0009] – [0010], [0033] – [0035]). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted these features for the buffer material of Wang for their good impact resistance and good production yield (Ishiguro, e.g., [0010] – [0013]).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xiao as applied to claims 2 and 11, above, and further in view of Panchawagh et al. (US 2018/0373913, “Panchawagh”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Wang fails to specifically teach that the substrate may be made of a stainless steel and its thickness. In the same field of endeavor of display devices (e.g., [0006] – [0010]), Panchawagh teaches a stainless steel substrate of less than 100 micrometers ([0124]) and therefore adopting such a foil as a substrate in the buffer film of Wang would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to provide the associated display device with flexibility (e.g., [0124]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that modified Wang fails to teach the newly claimed features. For the reasons described in the rejection of claims 1 and 10, above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Notably, Wang teaches that the buffer layer may include buffer shapes and that between the buffer shapes are cavities that are exposed at the top and bottom (see Fig. 100, below, wherein the space, L1, between shapes is exposed to the underlying layer 160). In this way, the buffer structures of Wang (i.e., 141a, 141b, Fig. 100) may be considered to be partition walls in the buffer layer. Wang additionally teaches that the buffer members may have any of various shapes, including a rectangular shape (p. 4 first full paragraph). The Examiner notes that, with regard to the shape of the buffer layer spaces or chambers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18 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