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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20200264660) modified by Chun et al. (US 20210201712 A1), Akutagawa et al. (US 20220056228) and further in view of Cho (US 20140140037 A1).
Re claim 1: Song discloses an electronic device (100 in fig 3) comprising: a first housing (first frame 101 in fig 3); a second housing (second frame 102 in fig 3) connected to the first housing, a relative position of the second housing being changeable with respect to the first housing, and a display comprising a display panel (display unit 151 in fig 3) comprising a deformation area (third region 151c in fig 12) deformed as the relative position between the first housing (101) and the second housing (102) is changed (see paragraph 103).
Song fails to disclose the display comprising a window layer and the display panel disposed under the window layer; a substrate layer comprising a pattern including a plurality of protrusions, the substrate layer being disposed above the window layer and exposed to an outside of the electronic device; and an adhesive layer disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, at least a portion of the adhesive layer being disposed between the plurality of protrusions of the substrate layer.
Chun discloses a display (100 in fig 2) comprising: a window layer (420 in fig 4), and a display panel (PNL in fig 6) disposed under the window layer, the display panel comprising a deformation area (folding area A1 in fig 4); a substrate layer (430 in fig 4) comprising a pattern including a plurality of protrusions (432 in fig 4), the substrate layer being disposed above the window layer and exposed to an outside of the electronic device; and an adhesive layer (440 in fig 4) disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, at least a portion of the adhesive layer being disposed between the plurality of protrusions of the substrate layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display with a window layer disposed over a display panel, a substrate layer being disposed above the window layer and exposed to an outside of the electronic device, and an adhesive layer disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, as shown in the device of Chun, in order to shield the display panel from scratches, impacts, dust, and environmental hazards for extending the display panel’s lifespan. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate layer with a pattern including a plurality of protrusions in order to enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer.
Song in view of Chun fails to disclose that the at least a portion of the adhesive layer comprising a refractive index adjustment member mixed therein in order to reduce a refractive index difference with the substrate layer.
Akutagawa discloses mixing in a refractive index adjustment member in order to reduce a refractive index difference between layers (see paragraph 459).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least a portion of the adhesive layer with a refractive index adjustment member mixed therein, as shown in the device of Akutagawa, since such a modification would allow for adjustment of the layer’s refractive index and may inhibit interference fringes while minimizing the refractive index difference between layers (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Song in view of Chun and Akutagawa fails to disclose that the plurality of protrusions are formed at a nanometer scale.
Cho discloses a cover window (21 in fig 2) provided above a display panel, wherein the cover window comprising a pattern (212 in fig 2) including a plurality of protrusions, wherein the plurality of protrusions are formed at a nanometer scale (see paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plurality of protrusions at a nanometer scale in order to enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer without interrupting light transmission from the display panel to the substrate layer (Cho: see paragraph 38).
Re claim 2: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein a refractive index of the adhesive layer (Chun: 440 in fig 4) and a refractive index of the substrate layer (Chun: 430 in fig 4) are substantially identical to each other (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Re claim 3: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein the refractive index adjustment member comprises a solid filler (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Re claim 4: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein widths of the plurality of protrusions have a nanometer size (Cho: see paragraph 38).
Re claim 5: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein widths of the plurality of protrusions have a nanometer size (Cho: see paragraph 38).
However, Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho fails to disclose that each of the plurality of protrusions has a width of 300 nm to 700 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the plurality of protrusions having a width of 300 nm to 700 nm in order enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer without interrupting light transmission from the display panel to the substrate layer and as per the designer’s choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Re claim 6: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein the plurality of protrusions (Chun: 432 in fig 4) have cross-sectional areas decreasing along a direction from the substrate layer to the adhesive layer.
Re claim 7: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein the first housing (Song: 101) is slidable with respect to the second housing (Song: 102), wherein at least a part of the display (Song: 151 in fig 5) is inserted into an accommodation space of the electronic device or withdrawn from the accommodation space according to a sliding of the second housing, and wherein the deformation area (Song: 151c in figs 3, 5) of the display comprises an area deformed by a sliding of the first housing with respect to the second housing (Song: see paragraph 109).
Re claim 8: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, comprising: a support member (Song: support frame 1515 in fig 12 and paragraphs 138-139) supporting the display (Song: 151), at least a portion of the support member being disposed in the second housing (Song: 102) to slide with respect to the first housing (Song: 101); and guide rails (Song: linear guides 230 in figs 2, 10) arranged on opposite ends of the support member to guide a sliding of the support member, wherein the display further comprises a first area (Song: 151a in fig 3) in which opposite ends of the display are fixed to the guide rails (Song: 230) and a second area (Song: 151c in fig 3) other than the first area, and wherein the pattern of the substrate layer (Chun: 432 in fig 4) is formed on one area of the substrate layer corresponding to the second area of the display (Chun: folding area A1 in fig 4; in the device of Chun, protrusions 432 are formed on both the folding area A1 and the non-folding area A2 of layer 430).
Re claim 9: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein the pattern of the substrate layer (Chun: 432 in fig 4) extends in a direction parallel to a sliding direction (Song: see direction D1 in fig 5b and paragraph 75) of the electronic device on the second area of the display (Song: 151c in fig 3).
Re claim 10: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device, wherein the pattern of the substrate layer (Chun: 432 in fig 4) is positioned on the deformation area (Chun: folding area A1 in fig 4).
Re claim 14: Song discloses a display (display unit 151 in fig 3) of an electronic device.
Song fails to disclose a protective film disposed on the display, the protective film comprising: a substrate layer comprising a pattern including a plurality of protrusions, the substrate layer being disposed above a window layer of the display and exposed to an outside of the electronic device; and an adhesive layer disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, at least a portion of the adhesive layer being disposed between the plurality of protrusions of the substrate layer.
Chun discloses a protective film disposed on a display (100 in fig 2), the protective film comprising: a substrate layer (430 in fig 4) comprising a pattern including a plurality of protrusions (432 in fig 4), the substrate layer being disposed above a window layer (420 in fig 4) of the display and exposed to an outside of the electronic device; and an adhesive layer (440 in fig 4) disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, at least a portion of the adhesive layer being disposed between the plurality of protrusions of the substrate layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display with a window layer disposed over a display panel, a substrate layer being disposed above the window layer and exposed to an outside of the electronic device, and an adhesive layer disposed between the window layer and the substrate layer, as shown in the device of Chun, in order to shield the display panel from scratches, impacts, dust, and environmental hazards for extending the display panel’s lifespan. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the substrate layer with a pattern including a plurality of protrusions in order to enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer.
Song in view of Chun fails to disclose that the at least a portion of the adhesive layer comprising a refractive index adjustment member mixed therein in order to reduce a refractive index difference with the substrate layer.
Akutagawa discloses mixing in a refractive index adjustment member in order to reduce a refractive index difference between layers (see paragraph 459).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least a portion of the adhesive layer with a refractive index adjustment member mixed therein, as shown in the device of Akutagawa, since such a modification would allow for adjustment of the layer’s refractive index and may inhibit interference fringes while minimizing the refractive index difference between layers (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Song in view of Chun and Akutagawa fails to disclose that the plurality of protrusions are formed at a nanometer scale.
Cho discloses a cover window (21 in fig 2) provided above a display panel, wherein the cover window comprising a pattern (212 in fig 2) including a plurality of protrusions, wherein the plurality of protrusions are formed at a nanometer scale (see paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plurality of protrusions at a nanometer scale in order to enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer without interrupting light transmission from the display panel to the substrate layer (Cho: see paragraph 38).
Re claim 15: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein a refractive index of the adhesive layer (Chun: 440 in fig 4) and a refractive index of the substrate layer (Chun: 430 in fig 4) are substantially identical to each other (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Re claim 16: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein the refractive index adjustment member comprises a solid filler (Akutagawa: see paragraph 459).
Re claim 17: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein widths of the plurality of protrusions have a nanometer size (Cho: see paragraph 38).
Re claim 18: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein widths of the plurality of protrusions have a nanometer size (Cho: see paragraph 38).
However, Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho fails to disclose that each of the plurality of protrusions has a width of 300 nm to 700 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the plurality of protrusions having a width of 300 nm to 700 nm in order enhance attachment strength with the adhesive layer without interrupting light transmission from the display panel to the substrate layer and as per the designer’s choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Re claim 19: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein the plurality of protrusions (Chun: 432 in fig 4) have cross-sectional areas decreasing along a direction from the substrate layer to the adhesive layer.
Re claim 20: Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the protective film, wherein the display (Song: display unit 151 in fig 3) comprises a deformation area (Song: third region 151c in fig 12) that is deformed as a relative position between the first housing (Song: 101) and the second housing (Song: 102) changes (Song: see paragraph 103), the first housing and the second housing being connected such that the relative position therebetween is changeable, and wherein at least a portion of the pattern of the substrate layer (Chun: 432 in fig 4) is positioned on the deformation area (Chun: A1 in fig 4).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20200264660) modified by Chun et al. (US 20210201712 A1), Akutagawa et al. (US 20220056228), Cho (US 20140140037 A1) and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20200314515).
Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho discloses the electronic device.
Song in view of Chun, Akutagawa and Cho fails to disclose that the adhesive layer is formed of at least one material among an acrylic-based material, a silicone-based material, a rubber-based material, or a urethane-based material.
Jang discloses an adhesive layer formed of at least one material among an acrylic-based material, a silicone-based material, a rubber-based material, or a urethane-based material (see paragraph 105).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an adhesive layer formed of at least one material among an acrylic-based material, a silicone-based material, a rubber-based material, or a urethane-based material, as shown in the device of Jang, since such a modification would allow the adhesive layer to additionally act as a vibration transfer layer (Jang: see paragraph 105).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/3/2025 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
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 Nidhi Thaker whose telephone number is (571)270-3408. The examiner can normally be reached M, TH, F 10am-6pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/NIDHI THAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights