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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (WO 2007/028600, of record) in view of Nakano (US 2003/0023018, of record).
Dupont is directed to an adhesive composition comprising from about 5% to about 95% by weight of a soft monomer or n-butyl acrylate (corresponds with claimed second acrylate-based monomer containing an alkyl group having 3 to 10 carbon atoms), about 2.5% to about 60% by weight of a hard monomer or C1-C30 (meth)acrylate (corresponds with claimed first monomer comprising a first methacrylate-based monomer containing an alkyl group have 14 to 16 carbon atoms), and about 0.1% to about 3% by weight of a low acid content or acrylic acid (corresponds with claimed meth(acrylate)-based monomer containing a polar functional group) (Pages 4 and 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the specific combination of materials detailed above given the general disclosure of Dupont.
In terms of a relationship between respective components in said adhesive composition, Dupont encompasses the following:
• Weight ratio between the first monomer and the second monomer varies between 1:0.08 (60:5) and 1:38 (2.5:95) and such fully encompasses the claimed range
• Weight ratio between the (meth)acrylate-based monomer containing the polar functional group and the second monomer varies between 1:1.67 (3:5) and 1:950 (0.1:95) and such fully encompasses the claimed range
Given that the materials and the loadings in the adhesive composition of Dupont substantially overlap those detailed by Applicant, it reasons that Dupont encompasses adhesive compositions (combination of first monomer, second monomer, and meth(acrylate) based monomer) that would demonstrate a molecular weight and storage modulus in accordance to the claimed invention (no evidence that additional factors would result in properties that deviate from those required by the claimed invention). It is emphasized that Dupont is seen to encompass the broad range of weight average molecular weights and storage modulus values required by the claimed invention and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weights. Nakano has been further applied to evidence the general order of molecular weights associated with similar acrylic-based pressure sensitive adhesives (Paragraph 34).
More particularly, the purported benefits (e.g. foldability) are directed to a specific application while the claims are more broadly directed to an adhesive composition having an intended use. Also, regarding Table I, it is unclear exactly what an evaluation of NG represents. For example, Comparative Examples 1-4 might simply have a single bubble after 200,000 cycles and Comparative Examples 5 and 6 might have the slightest amount of lifting after 200,000 cycles and such would not been seen as a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Thus, Table I is not seen to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for a general adhesive composition.
Also, regarding claim 1 (and claim 12), the language “for a foldable display” corresponds with the intended use of the claimed adhesive composition and as such, fails to further define the structure of the claimed adhesive composition (and adhesive film).
Regarding claim 2, Dupont teaches a hard monomer loading (corresponds with the claimed first monomer) between about 2.5% and about 60% by weight and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claim 3, Dupont teaches a soft monomer loading (corresponds with the claimed second monomer) between about 5% and about 95% by weight and such fully encompasses the claimed range.
As to claim 4, Dupont teaches a loading for the low acid content (corresponds with the claimed methacrylate-based monomer containing a polar functional group) between about 0.1% and about 3% by weight and such substantially overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Dupont describes compounds comprising carboxyl groups (Page 4, Lines 38+).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, constituent “d” can include epoxy groups and as such can be viewed as the claimed agent (claims fail to structurally distinguish the claimed agent from constituent “d” of Dupont). More particularly, constituent “d” teaches a most preferred loading as small as about 0.1 % by weight (Page 6, Lines 1-16).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakano confirms that molecular weight is a result of multiple process parameters and is not inherently obtained merely because an acrylic adhesive contains certain monomer types. It is initially noted that the Examiner never indicated that the claimed molecular weights were inherent. As set forth in the Non Final Rejection (Page 3) and reiterated above, given a substantial overlap in multiple characteristics (e.g. materials and loadings), it reasons that Dupont encompasses adhesive compositions that would demonstrate a molecular weight in accordance to the claimed, with Nakano evidencing the general order of molecular weights associated with acrylic-based pressure sensitive adhesives.
Applicant further states that a criticality for the claimed molecular weight range has in fact been demonstrated. More specifically, Applicant states that the cured product of the adhesive composition may have excellent folding reliability and adhesiveness when using the claimed molecular weight. However, when looking at Tables 1 and 2, only Comparative Examples 8 and 9 have a molecular weight outside that required by the claimed invention and folding evaluations and adhesiveness characteristics were not provided for Comparative Examples 8 and 9. Thus, there is no evidence that the claimed molecular weight range is responsible for benefits in folding reliability and adhesiveness as alleged by Applicant. It is further noted that the mere fact that the adhesive compositions in Comparative Examples 8 and 9 could not be applied via blade coating does not provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weight range. For example, Comparative Examples 8 and 9 might provide superior folding reliability and adhesiveness (as compared to inventive compositions/examples) and the associated adhesive compositions might be applied in a different manner.
Applicant also contends that Nakano does not teach or suggest the claimed storage modulus limitations and the Examiner has not established that the claimed storage modulus is inherent.
It is agreed that the claimed storage modulus is not inherent to the composition of Dupont- such a position was never set forth by the Examiner. There is a substantial overlap in several of the characteristics or features that contribute to the storage modulus and as such, it reasons that Dupont encompasses adhesive compositions having a storage modulus within the broad range required by the claimed invention. Looking at Table 2, Comparative Examples 1-4 and 7 demonstrate storage modulus values outside the claimed range. The experimental data, though, does not provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed storage modulus values as detailed below.
Comparative Examples 1 and 2 are inconsistent with the closest prior art of record (Dupont) since they are devoid of first and second monomers.
Comparative Example 3 is inconsistent with the closest prior art of record (Dupont) since a first monomer loading of 90% is considerably greater than the broad range and preferred range for taught by Dupont.
Comparative Example 4 is a singular composition that includes a second monomer loading of 88% and such is outside the preferred range and the most preferred range of the closest prior art of record (Dupont).
Comparative Example 7 is inconsistent with the closest prior art of record (Dupont) since it contains acrylic acid at a loading of 6% and such is considerably greater than the disclosed range in Dupont between 0.1% and 3% (Page 5, Lines 5+).
In terms of the NG evaluation, Applicant argues that the specification clearly defines said evaluation and is not ambiguous. It is emphasized that an evaluation of NG, for example, can correspond with a single bubble after 200,000 cycles and such is not seen to correspond with a conclusive showing of unexpected results (single bubble versus 0 bubbles at 200,000 cycles). Additionally, an NG evaluation of a first composition might correspond with a single bubble after 200,000 cycles and an OK evaluation of a second composition might correspond with a single bubble after 200,001 cycles. Thus, Tables 1 and 2 are not seen to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed compositions.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights