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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites: “wherein the soft coating layer comprises an organic material and an inorganic material”. However, Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends, already recites that the soft coating layer comprises a polymer layer, i.e., an organic material, and comprises a silica [silicon oxide] layer, i.e., an inorganic material. Therefore, Claim 7 does not appear to further limit the claim upon which it depends.
The Office notes that Claim 20 recites similar language to Claim 7, but is not rejected because it recites additional limitations which further limit Claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US 2017/0357348 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses: A window protective film, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a base layer (separation layer 120a; paragraph [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee);
a soft coating layer disposed on the base layer (the combination of three layers: first touch electrode 410, high refractive insulating layer 430M, and connection part 412, is disposed on separation layer 120a; FIG. 12 of Lee); and
an anti-fingerprint coating layer disposed on the soft coating layer (either of second insulating layer 440 or adhesive layer 15, wherein these layers are each disposed on the combined layers [first touch electrode 410, high refractive insulating layer 430M, and connection part 412], and wherein second insulating layer 440 and/or adhesive layer 15 prevents fingerprints on layers below it; FIG. 12 of Lee);
wherein the soft coating layer comprises:
a conductive polymer layer disposed on and in contact with a first surface of the base layer (the first touch electrode 410 is disposed on, and in contact with, an upper surface of separation layer 120a, wherein the first touch electrode 410 may comprise a conductive polymer; paragraph [0052] and FIG. 12 of Lee);
a silica coating layer disposed on at least one side of the conductive polymer layer and that includes a plurality of silica nano particles (the high refractive insulating layer 430M is disposed on an upper surface of the first touch electrode 410, and may comprise nanoparticles which include silicon dioxide [SiO2, silica]; paragraphs [0050], [0088], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee); and
a cover layer disposed on at least one side of the silica coating layer (connection part 412 is disposed on an upper surface of high refractive insulating layer 430M; FIG. 12 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a thickness of the base layer is from 70 µm to 100 µm (thickness of the separation layer 120a may be about 1 micrometer to about 100 micrometers; paragraph [0061], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the soft coating layer comprises an organic material and an inorganic material (the combination of three layers: first touch electrode 410, high refractive insulating layer 430M, and connection part 412 includes the first touch electrode 410 which may comprise a conductive polymer [polymers are organic materials] and includes the high refractive insulating layer 430M which may comprise nanoparticles which include silicon dioxide [SiO2, silica, wherein oxides are inorganic materials]; paragraphs [0050], [0052], [0088], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a thickness of the soft coating layer is from 300 nm to 500 nm (the thickness of the high refractive insulating layer 430M may range from about 1 nanometer [1 nm] to about 10 micrometers [10000 nm]; paragraph [0089] and FIG. 12 of Lee; the Office notes that the present claim language does not require a “total thickness” of the soft coating layer to be from 300 nm to 500 nm, but merely “a thickness” of the soft coating layer is from 300 nm to 500 nm).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses: A display device, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a display panel that includes one surface located at front of the display panel (display panel 300 having an upper surface; paragraphs [0035], [0091] and FIGS. 1, 12 of Lee);
a front stacked structure on the one surface of the display panel, wherein the front stacked structure comprises a window and a window protective film attached onto the window (the layers above the upper surface of display panel 300 may be identified as a “front stacked structure”, and these layers include optical film 550 [corresponding to the claimed “window”] and layers 120a, 410, 430M, 412, 440, 15 [corresponding to the claimed “window protective film”] which are attached thereto; paragraphs [0039], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee);
wherein the window protective film comprises:
a base layer (separation layer 120a; paragraph [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee);
a soft coating layer disposed on the base layer (the combination of three layers: first touch electrode 410, high refractive insulating layer 430M, and connection part 412, is disposed on separation layer 120a; FIG. 12 of Lee); and
an anti-fingerprint coating layer disposed on the soft coating layer (either of second insulating layer 440 or adhesive layer 15, wherein these layers are each disposed on the combined layers [first touch electrode 410, high refractive insulating layer 430M, and connection part 412], and wherein second insulating layer 440 and/or adhesive layer 15 prevents fingerprints on layers below it; FIG. 12 of Lee);
wherein the soft coating layer comprises:
a conductive polymer layer disposed on and in contact with a first surface of the base layer (the first touch electrode 410 is disposed on, and in contact with, an upper surface of separation layer 120a, wherein the first touch electrode 410 may comprise a conductive polymer; paragraph [0052] and FIG. 12 of Lee);
a silica coating layer disposed on at least one side of the conductive polymer layer and that includes a plurality of silica nano particles (the high refractive insulating layer 430M is disposed on an upper surface of the first touch electrode 410, and may comprise nanoparticles which include silicon dioxide [SiO2, silica]; paragraphs [0050], [0088], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee); and
a cover layer disposed on at least one side of the silica coating layer (connection part 412 is disposed on an upper surface of high refractive insulating layer 430M; FIG. 12 of Lee).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yano et al., US 2015/0301667 A1.
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Lee discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, but does not appear to disclose specific examples of the conductive polymer of first touch electrode 410, such that: wherein the conductive polymer layer comprises at least one of a polythiophene-based compound, a polypyrrole-based compound, a polyaniline-based compound, a polyacetylene-based compound, and a polyphenylenether-based compound.
Yano is related to Lee with respect to display device having conductive polymer.
Yano teaches: wherein the conductive polymer layer comprises at least one of a polythiophene-based compound, a polypyrrole-based compound, a polyaniline-based compound, a polyacetylene-based compound, and a polyphenylenether-based compound (conductive polymer may comprise polythiophenes, polyanilines or polyacetylenes; paragraph [0258] of Yano).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specific polymers of Yano for the conductive polymer of Lee because such polymers provide a preferable ease of polymerization and stability, as taught in paragraph [0258] of Yano.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (cited above with respect to Claims 1 and 13 and hereinafter Lee ‘348 or Lee-1) in view of Lee et al., US 2016/0307847 A1 (Lee ‘847 or Lee-2).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Lee discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13 but does not appear to explicitly disclose a modulus of the high refractive insulating layer 430M, such that: wherein a modulus of the soft coating layer is from 500 MPa to 2 GPa.
Lee-2 is related to Lee with respect to display device having insulating layers.
Lee-2 teaches: wherein a modulus of the soft coating layer is from 500 MPa to 2 GPa (insulating layer may have an elastic modulus of about 1 GPa to 3 GPa; paragraph [0095] of Lee-2; the Office notes that the present claim language does not require a “overall modulus” or “composite modulus” of the soft coating layer to be from 500 MPa to 2 GPa, but merely “a modulus” of the soft coating layer is from 500 MPa to 2 GPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the modulus of Lee-2 for the insulating layer of Lee because such range of modulus provides a sufficient stress dispersion and relaxation effect (which is known to avoid warpage), as taught in paragraphs [0089], [0095], [0144] of Lee-2.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Madden et al., US 2017/0356812 A1.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Lee discloses the limitations of Claims 7 and 13 and further discloses: the inorganic material comprises at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), niobium oxide (Nb2O5NbO2), glass bead, antimony (Sb), phosphorus (P), antimony tin oxide (ATO), and phosphorus tin oxide (PTO), or the inorganic material is glass bead (high refractive insulating layer 430M may comprise nanoparticles which include silicon dioxide [SiO2, silica]; paragraphs [0050], [0052], [0088], [0091] and FIG. 12 of Lee).
Lee does not appear to disclose specific examples of the conductive polymer of first touch electrode 410, such that: wherein the organic material comprises at least one of an acrylate-based compound, a polyurethane-based compound, an epoxy-based compound, a carboxylic acid-based compound, and a maleimide-based compound.
Madden is related to Lee with respect to optical device requiring transparency.
Madden teaches: wherein the organic material comprises at least one of an acrylate-based compound, a polyurethane-based compound, an epoxy-based compound, a carboxylic acid-based compound, and a maleimide-based compound (conductive polymer prepared using polyurethane; paragraph [0179] of Madden).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the polyurethane of Madden for the conductive polymer of Lee because such composition is highly transparent (and thus would be desirable for the display device of Lee), as taught in paragraph [0179] of Madden.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim et al., US 2020/0157386 A1.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Lee discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, but does not appear to explicitly disclose including a functional additive to the layer(s), such that: wherein the soft coating layer comprises an additive, and the additive comprises at least one of 1,6-Hexaneciol diacrylate (HDDA), 1,10- Decanediol diacrylate (DDDA), bisphenol A (EO)4 diacrylate (BPA(EO)4DA), bisphenol A (EO)3 diacrylate (BPA(EO)3DA), bisphenol A (EO)10 diacrylate (BPA(EO)10DA), bisphenol A (EO)20 diacrylate (BPA(EO)20DA), bisphenol A (EO)30 diacrylate (BPA(EO)30DA), tricylclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (TCDDA), polyethylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PEG400DA), polyethylene glycol 300 diacrylate (PEG300DA), polyethylene glycol 200 diacrylate (PEG200DA), polyethylene glycol 600 diacrylate (PEG600DA), bisphenol F(EO)4 diacrylate (BPF(EO)4DA), and polypropylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PPG400DA).
Kim is related to Lee with respect to display device.
Kim teaches: wherein the soft coating layer comprises an additive, and the additive comprises at least one of 1,6-Hexaneciol diacrylate (HDDA), 1,10- Decanediol diacrylate (DDDA), bisphenol A (EO)4 diacrylate (BPA(EO)4DA), bisphenol A (EO)3 diacrylate (BPA(EO)3DA), bisphenol A (EO)10 diacrylate (BPA(EO)10DA), bisphenol A (EO)20 diacrylate (BPA(EO)20DA), bisphenol A (EO)30 diacrylate (BPA(EO)30DA), tricylclodecane dimethanol diacrylate (TCDDA), polyethylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PEG400DA), polyethylene glycol 300 diacrylate (PEG300DA), polyethylene glycol 200 diacrylate (PEG200DA), polyethylene glycol 600 diacrylate (PEG600DA), bisphenol F(EO)4 diacrylate (BPF(EO)4DA), and polypropylene glycol 400 diacrylate (PPG400DA) (polyethylene glycol 600 diacrylate may be added as a crosslinking agent; paragraphs [0091]-[0096] of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the polyethylene of Kim for the soft coating layer of Lee because such crosslinking agent serves to increase mechanical strength, as taught in paragraph [0091] of Kim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (cited above with respect to Claim 1 and hereinafter Lee ‘348 or Lee-1) in view of Lee et al., US 2016/0259104 A1 (Lee ‘104 or Lee-3).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee-1 discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a thickness of the adhesive layer 15, such that: wherein a thickness of the anti-fingerprint coating layer is from 20 nm to 100 nm.
Lee-3 is related to Lee-1 with respect to display device having display panel.
Lee-3 teaches: wherein a thickness of the anti-fingerprint coating layer is from 20 nm to 100 nm (adhesive layer may have a thickness ranging from about 50 nm to about 500 nm; paragraph [0067] of Lee-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the adhesive layer thickness of Lee-3 for the adhesive layer of Lee-1 because in a case where the thickness of the adhesive layer is too low, the adhesive layer 110 may not provide adequate adhesiveness, but in a case where the thickness of the adhesive layer is too high, the device may have difficulty in achieving slimness [i.e., failing to avoid excessive thickness or bulk of the device], as taught in paragraph [0067] of Lee-3.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nam, US 2016/0286673 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 13, but does not appear to further disclose: wherein the front stacked structure comprises an impact absorbing layer disposed between the display panel and the window, and an impact absorbing layer bonding member that attaches the impact absorbing layer onto the display panel.
Nam is related to Lee with respect to display device including display panel.
Nam teaches: wherein the front stacked structure comprises an impact absorbing layer disposed between the display panel and the window, and an impact absorbing layer bonding member that attaches the impact absorbing layer onto the display panel (a barrier layer may be attached to a display panel via adhesive layer either above or below such display panel; paragraph [0049] and FIGS. 1, 2 of Nam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the barrier layer of Nam for the display device of Lee because such barrier layer will absorb an impact from the outside to reduce or prevent damage of the flexible display panel, as taught in paragraph [0049] of Nam.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (cited above with respect to Claim 13 and hereinafter Lee ‘348 or Lee-1) in view of Lee et al., US 2019/0373719 A1 (Lee ‘719 or Lee-4).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee-1 discloses the limitations of Claim 13, but does not appear to further disclose: wherein the display panel comprises an other surface located at a rear of the display panel, and the display device further comprises a rear stacked structure stacked on the other surface of the display panel, wherein the rear stacked structure comprises a polymer layer disposed at the rear of the display panel, a cushion layer disposed at a rear of the polymer layer, a plate disposed at a rear of the cushion layer, and a heat dissipation member disposed at a rear of the plate.
Lee-4 is related to Lee-1 with respect to display device including display panel.
Lee-4 teaches: wherein the display panel comprises an other surface located at a rear of the display panel, and the display device further comprises a rear stacked structure stacked on the other surface of the display panel, wherein the rear stacked structure comprises a polymer layer disposed at the rear of the display panel, a cushion layer disposed at a rear of the polymer layer, a plate disposed at a rear of the cushion layer, and a heat dissipation member disposed at a rear of the plate (layers AM4, PF1, PF3, and PF2 sequentially provided at a rear side of display panel DP, wherein layer AM4 may be an optical clear resin [OCR; the Office notes that resin is a polymer], layer PF1 may be a plastic film, layer PF3 may be a light blocking layer depicted as a smooth flat thin piece of material, and layer PF2 may include a heat dissipating layer; paragraphs [0088]-[0095] and FIGS. 4A, 4B, 5A of Lee-4; the Office notes that without further definition or distinction, the claimed components may be interpreted broadly [see MPEP §§ 2111 and 2163]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the functional layer stack of Lee-4 for the display device of Lee because such set of layers provides increased impact resistance in addition to increased visibility together with increased resistance against an external impact or stress, which are generated during use of the device, as taught in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] of Lee-4, but see especially paragraph [0095] of Lee-4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of Claim 1 or Claim 13.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 2, although the prior art discloses various window protective films, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
72
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 3, although the prior art discloses various window protective films, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
72
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 9, although the prior art discloses various window protective films, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
318
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 16, although the prior art discloses various display devices, including:
PNG
media_image5.png
244
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
51
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872