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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2005/068521, newly cited).
Kim is directed to an acrylic, pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising the following components (combination of elements corresponds with claimed acrylic copolymer):
35-94.9 parts by weight of a methacrylic ester monomer, such as n-tetradecyl methacrylate (corresponds with claimed first monomer) (Page 4, Lines 3-4 and Page 6, Lines 15-18),
5-50 parts by weight of a methacrylic acid ester monomer, such as 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (corresponds with claimed second monomer) (Page 4, Lines 6-7 and Page 7, Lines 1-5),
0.1-15 parts by weight of an acrylic monomer having a functional group that can be crosslinked, such as acrylic acid (AA), methacrylic acid (MA), and acrylic acid dimer (corresponds with claimed methacrylate based monomer containing a polar functional group) (Page 4, Lines 9-10 and Page 7, Lines 22+), and
0.01 to 10 parts by weight of a multifunctional group that can be crosslinked (corresponds with the claimed epoxy-based crosslinking agent that is added after the copolymer is produced by polymerization), such as an epoxy (e.g. ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether) (Page 4, Lines 11 and Page 8, Lines 10+.
Kim further states that the acrylic copolymer preferably has a molecular weight between 200,000 to 2,000,000 (Page 8, Lines 2+). Thus, the preferred range in Kim encompasses half of the claimed molecular weights. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the acrylic copolymer with a molecular weight in accordance to the claimed invention given the preferred disclosure noted above and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed molecular weights.
In terms of the weight ratios, a ratio between the first monomer and the second monomer in Kim is between 1:0.05 and 1:1.4 and such substantially encompasses the claimed range of ratios (90% of claimed range is encompassed by Kim). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention given the general disclosure of Kim and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Additionally, a weight ratio between the methacrylate based monomer and the second monomer in Kim is between 1:500 and 1:0.33 and such fully encompasses the claimed range of ratios. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention given the general disclosure of Kim and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed invention.
Given that the materials, the loadings, and the molecular weights of the adhesive composition of Kim substantially overlap those detailed by Applicant, it reasons that Kim encompasses adhesive compositions (combination of first monomer, second monomer, and meth(acrylate) based monomer) that would demonstrate a 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).
Furthermore, as to claims 1 and 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).
Lastly, regarding claim 1, it is noted that all of the examples listed in Table 1 comprising lauryl acrylate are non-inventive since the claims require a first monomer comprising a first methacrylate based monomer containing an alkyl group having 14 to 16 carbon atoms. Thus, Example 4 is the lone example that corresponds with an inventive adhesive composition. Additionally, as detailed above, Kim is specifically directed to an adhesive composition in which the first monomer is in fact n-tetradecyl methacrylate or TDMA.
Regarding claim 2, as noted above, said first monomer is included at an amount between 35 parts by weight and 94.9 parts by weight of the monomer mixture (combination of monomer elements).
With respect to claim 3, said second monomer is included in an amount between 5 parts by weight and 50 parts by weight of the monomer mixture.
As to claim 4, said methacrylate based monomer is included in an amount between 0.1 parts by weight and 15 parts by weight of the monomer mixture.
Regarding claim 8, said methacrylate based monomer in Kim can be acrylic acid (AA) or methacrylic acid (MA).
With respect to claim 10, said epoxy-based crosslinking agent is included in an amount between 0.01 parts by weight and 10 parts by weight of the acrylic copolymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights