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) 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0181165, “Park”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2020/0325952, “Ryu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Park teaches a display device (that is, an electronic device) having a display panel (e.g., Fig. 2a, DP) and including a window member over the display (e.g., GL1, Fig. 2A, [0071]), a protective film under the display device (see Fig. 6, having underlying substrate layer SUB, [0071], [0098]; additionally, see Fig. 9, wherein underlying layer PRT is a protective film directly under the display and may be considered a protective film [0178]). Park additionally teaches that a metallic reflective film may be placed under the protective film (see Fig. 8, layer SP, [0174] – [0178]). Park additionally teaches the inclusion of an underlying buffer layer that may provide impact resistance to the display panel (see Fig. 9, layer BF, [0022] – [0024] wherein a metallic layer may be included between the buffer layer and the display panel). In an embodiment, Park teaches that a protective film may be placed between a display panel and a buffer layer and that an optical shielding layer may be placed between the protective film and the buffer layer (e.g., [0178], Fig. 9). Park also teaches in this embodiment that the protective film may be attached to the rear surface of the display panel ([0179]). As described above, in a separate embodiment, Park teaches that a metal support layer may be provided between the display panel and the buffer layer and that this metal support layer may provide EMI shielding functionality ([0176], [0177], Fig. 8). This EMI shielding functionality may be considered to also function as an optical shielding component in that the metal layer would function to reflect electromagnetic radiation ([0176], [0177], wherein the layer may be made of various reflective metals). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have placed a support layer between the protective layer and the buffer layer in order to maintain the integrity of the protective layer adjacent to the display panel ([0179]), because Park teaches that this is a suitable position for components providing optical shielding ([0179]), because it is consistent with the described placement of the support layer in the embodiment of Fig. 8 (i.e., “between a display panel DP and a buffer material BF”, [0174]), and ultimately to provide additional bending protection to the display ([0175]). Park fails to specifically teach that the makeup of the buffer layer corresponding to the claimed protective layer comprises a base resin, a light absorbent, and a polymer bead as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices and layers for use therein ([0002] – [0007]), Ryu teaches a cushion layer comprising a light blocking black pigment, a particle, and a resin or base material (see Fig. 7, layer CSL-1 wherein the layer comprising light blocking carbon black nanoparticles NCB, hollow particles, and a resin, [0056], [0093] – [0098]). Ryu teaches that the particles may be polymeric ([0010]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the cushion layer of Ryu for the buffer layer of Park in order to improve impact resistance and reduce reflection of external light within the device ([0096] – [0098]).
Regarding claim 2, Park additionally teaches that the protective layer may be directly applied under the reflective or metallic layer (see Fig. 8, BF layer applied directly under SP layer, [0174] – [0176]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Park (Ryu) additionally teaches that the resin or base composition may comprise an acrylic resin (Ryu, [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park (Ryu) additionally teaches that the light absorbent may absorb visible light (e.g. [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Park additionally teaches that the reflective layer may be positioned directly under a protective film. For example, the reflective layer may be applied directly under the display panel substrate via an adhesive (see Fig. 8) or may be positioned between the buffer layer and the display panel layer with a protective film therebetween (and thus the metallic reflective layer may be considered to be directly under the protective layer (see [0023], [0024], [0179]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Park additionally teaches that the metallic layer may include, for example, copper ([0176]).
Regarding claim 7, Park additionally teaches that a heat dissipation layer may be disposed under the protective layer (or buffer layer, Fig. 9, AHL, [0178], heat radiating layer).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, modified Park additionally teaches the inclusion of particles in a wide range of densities and parts by weight and teaches to modify the densities of the particles in order to balance the dispersion and shock absorption properties of the layer and thus it would have been obvious to have adjusted the density (and therefore volumetric inclusion, including to on the claimed range of greater than 20% by volume) in order to improve these properties (Ryu, [0010] – [0011], [0066], [0072] – [0075]).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, modified Park (Ryu) additionally teaches that the polymer beads may comprise shell portions surrounding a gaseous void or core portion (Ryu, [0065]).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ryu as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Nichol et al. (US 2011/0273906, “Nichol”).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, modified Park fails to specifically teach that the protective layer comprise 20 vol% or more of the light absorbent material but does teach that the light absorbent material should be, for example, carbon black ([0081]). In the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0003], [0004]), Nichol teaches that adjusting the volumetric inclusion of carbon black particles to with the range of 0.1 to 50% is known in the art in order to adjust the transmission of light through a layer ([0391]) and thus the adjustment of the volume of such particles to within the range of more than 20% by volume would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in order to reduce the transmission of light through the layer (Nichol, [0391]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ryu as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Han (US 2018/0053451, “Han”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Park fails to specifically teach the thickness of the buffer layer (or lower protective layer. The ordinarily skilled artisan therefore would have found it necessary to consider the prior art regarding a teaching for the thickness of such a layer. In the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0003]), Han teaches that a suitable thickness for a cushion or buffer layer is on the range of from about 100 micrometers to about 200 micrometers ([0071]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adjusted the thickness of the buffer layer of modified Park to on this range as it would have been necessary to search the art for a suitable thickness and this thickness is described as being suitable for a cushion layer for use in a display device ([0071]).
Claim(s) 12, 18, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ryu as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Hebrink et al. (US 2017/0145183, “Hebrink”).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, modified Park fails to specifically teach the optical density of the protective layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of protective optical films (e.g., [0130] – [0135], [0032], [0033]), Hebrink teaches an appropriate range for an optical density for a protective film may be greater than 4 in order to provide protection from light at that wavelength ([0135]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the optical density to greater than 4 in order to adjust the layer so that it is effective to protect the structure from light (Hebrink, [0135]).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, modified Park teaches that the layer corresponding to the claimed reflective layer may be made of various metals, any number of which would function to reflect UV radiation (see, e.g., silver, [0176]). Ryu additionally teaches that the layer corresponding to the base layer may be made of a polymerizable resin material ([0056] – [0060], e.g., any of which acrylates may be polymerized via radical initiation). Ryu fails to specifically teach that this layer is coated and cured via UV radiation and a photoiniatiator, however, such a process is well known in the prior art. For example, Hebrink teaches that it is known to provide a UV-photoinitiator in order to effectively cured a resin layer ([0080] – [0086]) and that doing so may help to control the desired molecular weight of the composition (e.g., [0084]). It therefore would have been obvious to have used a UV photoinitiator as a method of polymerizing the resin of modified Park (e.g., Hebrink, [0080] – [0086]). It should be noted that claims 26 and 27 includes product-by-process limitations. While Hebrink teaches various coating processes that would have been employable and obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan (e.g., [0133]), this method of applying a film layer to the structure of Park would not provide a material difference to the structure of the layer as claimed. "[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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/8/25 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 Park fails to teach the order of layers underneath a display as presently claimed. However, as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, above, Park teaches layers corresponding to those claimed and the combination of the claimed layers would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Park teaches that a protective film may be placed between a display panel and a buffer layer and that an optical shielding layer may be placed between the protective film and the buffer layer (e.g., [0178], Fig. 9). Park also teaches in this embodiment that the protective film may be attached to the rear surface of the display panel ([0179]). As described above, in a separate embodiment, Park teaches that a metal support layer may be provided between the display panel and the buffer layer and that this metal support layer may provide EMI shielding functionality ([0176], [0177], Fig. 8). This EMI shielding functionality may be considered to also function as an optical shielding component in that the metal layer would function to reflect electromagnetic radiation ([0176], [0177], wherein the layer may be made of various reflective metals). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have placed a support layer between the protective layer and the buffer layer in order to maintain the integrity of the protective layer adjacent to the display panel ([0179]), because Park teaches that this is a suitable position for components providing optical shielding ([0179]), because it is consistent with the described placement of the support layer in the embodiment of Fig. 8 (i.e., “between a display panel DP and a buffer material BF”, [0174]), and ultimately to provide additional bending protection to the display ([0175]).
Applicant argues that the metal SP film of Park is used for a different purpose than the presently claimed reflective layer comprising a metal. This may be so, but because the metal layer SP comprises a metal and also may be considered to be “reflective,” at least to some degree (e.g., EMI shielding, may include or be made of various reflective metals, [0176]), it may be considered to read on the presently claimed structural requirements. In response to applicant's argument that intention of the claimed metal reflective layer is to provide an optical functionality, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Therefore, claims 1-18, 26, and 27 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