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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitation “wherein the at least two protection films have a same modulus” fails to comply with the enablement requirement for reasons as follow:
The specification of the instant application broadly describes that “The first protection film PF1 and the second protection film PF2 can have a modulus of about 4 GPa” (See paragraph 84). However, the specification does not further describe any enabling disclosure as to 1) what types of modulus the first protection film and the second protection film can have the same modulus value among various moduli such as Young’s modulus, Shear modulus, Bulk modulus, Flexural modulus, etc. and 2) which is thicker and/or thinner between the first protection film thickness and the second protection film thickness when the first protection film and the second protection film have the same modulus value and 3) how (i.e., by what measuring method during what manufacturing step) the same modulus value of 4 GPa are obtained for the first protection film and the second protection film separated by the adhesive layer. Then, due to the limited disclosure in the specification, undue experimentation would be required for determining 1) what type of modulus among various moduli the first protection film and the second protection film can have the same modulus value and 2) which is thicker/thinner when obtaining the same modulus value for the first protection film and the second protection film and 3) how the same modulus value is obtained for the first protection film and the second protection film separated by the adhesive layer.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence of record related to the pertinent Wands factors and reasons discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, would not have been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Claim 13 reciting the amened limitation “wherein the first protection film and the second protection film have a same modulus” is rejected with the similar reason for rejecting claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 2-12 and 14-20, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 13, are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2018/0354227 A1; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (DP of PNL) configured to display an image, the display panel being a folding display panel (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 3-5 and 100-102); a polarizing plate (POL of PNL) over the display panel (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 100-101); a front member (TSP of PNL) over the polarizing plate (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 101-103); and a protection member (a window including PL and SUB protecting underlying PNL) over the front member (Figs. 2 and 5B and paragraph 46), wherein the protection member includes at least two protection films (SUB and at least one of PSUB1 and PSUB2) and an adhesive layer (ADH between SUB and PSUB1/PSUB2) disposed between the at least two protection films (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 46-54), and wherein thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thinner toward a folding direction of the display panel (For example, SUB having a thickness of about 50μm and PSUB1 having a thickness of about 200μm with a folding direction shown in Fig. 3) (Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 51 and 73-75).
Park teaches each and every limitation of the display device structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, Park additionally teaches that the at least two protection films include polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 8), which is compositionally identical to that of the invention (See the rejected claim 5 and paragraph 73). As such, since Park teaches the display device including the at least two protection films structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim, claimed property, “wherein the at least two protection films have a same modulus”, is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the adhesive layer includes an optically clear adhesive (OCA) or a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) (paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches wherein the at least two protection films include polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein an outermost protection film (PSUB2) of the at least two protection films (paragraph 60). Furthermore, Park teaches that the outermost protection film is formed of polyethylene terephthalate identical to that of the invention (See paragraph 8 and claim 5). As such, since Park teaches the display device comprising the outermost protective film of the at least two protection films structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim and since the claim does not further recite to distinguish over Park teaching the identical outermost protective film, claimed property or function (i.e., “an outermost protection film…has a plane direction retardation of about 6500 nm or more”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches wherein, when the display panel is an in-folding display panel, the thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thinner toward an image-displaying surface of the display panel (For example, SUB having the thickness of about 50μm and PSUB1 having the thickness of about 200μm with the folding direction shown in Fig. 3) (Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 51 and 73-75).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches wherein, when the display panel is an out-folding display panel, the thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thicker toward an image-displaying surface of the display panel (the limitation “when the display panel is an out-folding display panel, the thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thicker toward an image-displaying surface of the display panel” is a conditional statement that “when the display panel is an out-folding display panel” is a condition as true, then “the thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thicker toward an image-displaying surface of the display panel” happens). As such, when the condition is false (i.e., when the display panel is not the out-folding display panel), then the limitation “the thicknesses of the at least two protection films become thicker toward an image-displaying surface of the display panel” becomes optional and can be omitted from Park’s teaching). In re Johnston, 435 F.3d. 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[O]ptional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Based on such interpretation, the Examiner is not required to find the disclosure of a conditional step of { } in the prior art. See Ex Parte Gary M. Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches wherein the protection member further includes: a coating layer (a hard coating layer on the top surface of PL and under an anti-fingerprint layer) over the at least two protection films, and a functional layer (the anti-fingerprint layer on the top surface of PL) over the coating layer (paragraphs 91-92).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches a display device, comprising: a display panel (DP of PNL) configured to display an image, the display panel being a folding display panel that folds in a folding direction (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 3-5 and 100-102); and a protection member (a window including PL and SUB protecting underlying PNL) over the display panel (Figs. 2 and 5B and paragraph 46), the protection member including a first protection film (SUB), a second protection film (PSUB1) over the first protection film, and a first adhesive layer (ADH between SUB and PSUB1) disposed between the first protection film and the second protection film (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 46-54), wherein the first protection film and the second protection film are each integrally formed and include a same material (for example, SUB and PSUB1 are formed of polyethylene terephthalate) (paragraph 8), and wherein relative thicknesses of the first protection film and the second protection film decrease toward the folding direction of the display panel (For example, SUB having a thickness of about 50μm and PSUB1 having a thickness of about 200μm with a folding direction shown in Fig. 3) (Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 51 and 73-75).
Park teaches each and every limitation of the display device structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, Park additionally teaches that the first protection film and the second protection film include polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 8), which is compositionally identical to that of the invention (See the rejected claim 5 and paragraph 73). As such, since Park teaches the display device including the first protection film and the second protection film structurally and compositionally identical to that of the claim, claimed property, “wherein the first protection film and the second protection film have a same modulus”, is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches wherein the first adhesive material directly contacts both the first protection film and the second protection film (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches further comprising: a polarizing plate (POL of PNL) between the display panel and the protection member (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 100-101); and a front member (TSP of PNL) over the polarizing plate and the protection member (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 101-103).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches wherein the display panel includes a plurality of light emitting devices (organic light emitting diodes of DP of PNL), and the polarizing plate, the front member, the first protection film, and the second protection film are directly above the display panel (Fig. 5B and paragraphs 3 and 101-102).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0375880 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches further comprising: a third adhesive (ADH between TSP of PNL and SUB) disposed between the front member and the protection member (Fig. 5B).
Park does not explicitly teach 1) a first adhesive disposed between the display panel (DP of PNL) and the polarizing plate (POL of PNL) and 2) a second adhesive disposed between the polarizing plate (POL of PNL) and the front member (TSP of PNL).
Regarding 1) a first adhesive disposed between the display panel (DP of PNL) and the polarizing plate (POL of PNL), Kim teaches a display device (Figs. 1A-2, an electronic device ED), comprising: a first adhesive (a third adhesive layer AL3) disposed between a display panel (a display module DM) and a polarizing plate (an optical film LF including a polarizing film) in order to fix the polarizing plate on the display panel (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 87-89). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Park with that of Kim in order to utilize the adhesive layer to fix the polarizing plate on the display panel.
Regarding 2) a second adhesive disposed between the polarizing plate (POL of PNL) and the front member (TSP of PNL), it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adhesive between the polarizing plate and the front member (i.e., the touch panel TSP) in order to adhere the front member on the polarizing plate.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein at least one of the first, second, and third adhesives includes an optically clear adhesive (OCA) (Park, paragraph 81, ADH between TSP of PNL and SUB formed of optically clear adhesive).
Regarding claim 10, Park does not explicitly teach a black matrix. Kim teaches a display device (Figs. 1A-2, an electronic device ED), comprising: a protective member (a window module WM), wherein the protection member further includes a black matrix (a light blocking pattern BP) disposed along an edge of a top surface or a bottom surface of a protection film (along an edge of a top surface of a bottom surface of a window protective layer PF) in order to define the peripheral area from outside of the electronic device (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 76-85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Park with that of Kim in order to define the peripheral area from outside of the electronic device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0257023 A1; hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches an outermost protection film of the at least two protection films (PSUB2) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 59-60). However, Park does not explicitly teach that the outermost protective film includes “at least one of an ultraviolet (UV) absorber and a light stabilizer”. Ahn teaches a display device (a flexible display device) (paragraphs 127-128), comprising: a protective layer (a hard coating film 10) comprising an UV absorber (UV absorbent as one of additive materials) for providing the desired function such as UV light absorption (paragraphs 116 and 127-128). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Park with that of Ahn in order to obtain the desired function such as UV light absorption with additives added to the protective layer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0202879 A1; hereinafter “Park 879”).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches wherein the first protection film and the second protection film are transparent films formed of polymer material (paragraphs 49, 53-54, and 60). However, Park does not explicitly teach “triacetyl cellulose (TAC), cycloolefin polymer (COP), or a combination thereof” as a material choice for the protection films. Park 879 teaches a display device (a foldable display device 100) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 37-38), comprising: a protective layer (a foldable cover window 160) formed of triacetyl cellulose (TAC), cycloolefin polymer (COP), or a combination thereof (160 formed of TAC) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 44-45 and 91). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Park with that of Park 879 in order to utilize readily known material choice for the window layer having its predictable material characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893