RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 February 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amendments to claim 1, filed on 27 February 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claim 8 has been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-7 are pending, of which claims 6-7 remain withdrawn from consideration as described on page 3 of the Office Action mailed on 12 June 2025.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 as over JP 2016-126130 A in view of Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480) and of claim 2 over JP ‘130, Fukagawa, and Xie (U.S. Pub. 2021/0223832), made of record on pages 3-6, paragraphs 4-5 of the office action mailed 28 November 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response entered 30 March 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 8 as over Jozuka (U.S. Pub. 2019/0106608) in view of Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480), made of record on pages 6-8, paragraph 6 of the office action mailed 28 November 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response entered 30 March 2026.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koma (U.S. Pub. 2016/0372358) in view of Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480).
Regarding claim 1, Koma discloses a semiconductor member processing sheet which includes a base layer and an adjacent adhesive layer, see FIG. 1 and p. 1-2, [0010]. The base layer is a resin film as described at p. 2, [0016] and is taught to be flexible, see p. 3, [0021]. This reads on a flexible film as claimed. As the sheet is flexible, it is suitable for use in a flexible device. Koma teaches that the adhesive layer is joined to the base film, see p. 3, [0019]. The adhesive layer has a storage elastic modulus G’ at 23 °C of preferably 3.5 x 105 Pa or more and 1 x 107 Pa or less (0.35 GPa to 10 GPa) before curing, see p. 11, [0095]. After partial curing of the adhesive, the storage elastic modulus is expected to be substantially similar to that prior to curing of the adhesive. Thus, the adhesive overlaps the claimed storage modulus limitation.
Koma does not specify the surface free energy difference between the flexible base film and the adhesive layer to be 30 dynes/cm or less.
Fukagawa teaches an optical film, adhesive layer, and display device, see title and abstract and p. 2, [0024]. The laminate includes a substrate film and polarizer bonded through an adhesive layer, see p. 15, [0233]. Fukagawa notes when the surface energy difference between layers is reduced, the adhesive force tends to increase, and that the surface energy of the layers can be set appropriately to adjust this adhesive force, see p. 14-15, [0223]. The surface energy of the substrate film is preferably from 41.0 to 48.0 mN/m (41.0 to 48.0 dynes/cm), see p. 15, [0225]. Reducing the surface energy difference between the substrate film and an adjacent layer will thus increase the adhesive force. While Fukagawa does not specify a particular surface free energy difference, it is noted that the claimed surface free energy difference of 30 dynes/cm or less is greater than half of the total value of the surface free energy of the substrate film which is 41.0 to 48.0 dynes/cm as described at p. 15, [0225]. Thus, when adjusting the surface free energy difference to an amount which arrives at a suitable adhesive force, the resulting difference is expected to be much smaller than 41-48 dynes/cm and thus is expected to be less than 30 dynes/cm as claimed.
Koma and Fukagawa are analogous because they are similar in structure as each describes adhesive sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surface free energy of the adjacent layers to a small difference as described in Fukagawa in order to enhance the adhesion force between the layers.
Regarding claim 3, Koma further teaches that the adhesive includes an acrylic-based polymer main component reading on the claimed polymer component, an energy ray polymerizable compound, and a crosslinker, see p. 3, [0026]. The polymerizable compound may include an epoxy group, reading on a cyclic ether group as claimed, see p. 5, [0040]. The crosslinker described at p. 6, [0056] reads on a curing agent of the compound.
Regarding claim 4, Koma teaches that the adhesive has a thickness of from 5-80 microns, see p. 9, [0078].
Regarding claim 5, Koma discloses that the base layer is a resin film as described at p. 2, [0016] and is taught to be flexible, see p. 3, [0021]. This reads on a flexible film as claimed. As the sheet is flexible, it is suitable for use in a flexible device such as a flexible display.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koma (U.S. Pub. 2016/0372358) and Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480) as applied above, and further in view of Xie (U.S. Pub. 2021/0223832).
Regarding claim 2, Koma and Fukagawa are relied upon as described above. However, they do not specify the absolute value difference of a coefficient of linear expansion of a flexible film and the adhesive layer to be 25 ppm/K or less as claimed.
Xie similarly describes a flexible circuit board used in a display panel, see abstract and p. 1, [0007-0012]. The flexible circuit board is adjacent to a non-flexible component. Xie teaches that the difference of thermal expansion coefficients between the flexible component and non-flexible component should be small, particularly less than 40% of the value of the thermal expansion coefficient of the flexible circuit board, so that instability and low manufacturing yield caused by a large difference in thermal expansion coefficients can be avoided. Example values of these coefficients are 2.49 ppm/°C for the flexible control circuit board and 3 to 3.5 ppm/°C for the non-flexible circuit board, see p. 3, [0055]. The difference in absolute value is less than 25 ppm/K as claimed.
Koma, Fukagawa, and Xie are analogous because they are similar in structure and function as they describe laminate components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use adjacent materials with a low difference in thermal expansion coefficient as taught in Xie in order to arrive at the claimed invention, as Xie teaches that low differences in thermal expansion coefficients can reduce instability and low manufacturing yield, see p. 3, [0055].
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida (U.S. Pub. 2019/0070833) in view of Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480).
Regarding claim 1, Machida discloses a protective film used for an optical surface such as a display, see abstract and p.1, [0001-0003]. The film includes a base layer and an adhesive layer on at least on surface thereof, see p. 2, [0013]. The adhesive includes a styrene based elastomer having a shear storage modulus G’ measured at 30 °C and 60 °C within the range of 0.8 x 106 and 1.8 x 106 Pa (0.8 to 1.8 GPa), see p. 2, [0016]. Machida states that the base layer has a thickness of from 20 to 100 microns, preferably 25 to 80 microns, see p. 4, [0035], and is able to conform to an adherend, see p. 3, [0030]. This reads on a flexible film as claimed.
Machida also teaches that the laminated film can is used as a protective film, particularly for the back face of the prism sheets, see p. 4, [0042]. The back face of the prism sheet preferably has an adherend surface wet tension (surface free energy) of 25 mN/m or more and no more than 60 mN/m, see p. 4, [0045]. The adherend surface free energies in Examples 1-4 are 50, 42, 36, and 48 mN/m, respectively, see Table 1 on p. 6.
Machida does not specify the absolute value of a difference of surface free energy of a flexible film and of a cured layer obtained by curing the adhesive layer as claimed.
Fukagawa teaches an optical film, adhesive layer, and display device, see title and abstract and p. 2, [0024]. The laminate includes a substrate film and polarizer bonded through an adhesive layer, see p. 15, [0233]. Fukagawa notes when the surface energy difference between layers is reduced, the adhesive force tends to increase, and that the surface energy of the layers can be set appropriately to adjust this adhesive force, see p. 14-15, [0223]. The surface energy of the substrate film is preferably from 41.0 to 48.0 mN/m (41.0 to 48.0 dynes/cm), see p. 15, [0225]. Reducing the surface energy difference between the substrate film and an adjacent layer will thus increase the adhesive force.
Thus, when comparing the surface free energy of the substrate in Fukagawa and the back face of the prism sheet of Machida, the difference in surface energies is less than 30 dyn/cm (30 mN/m). A small difference between the surface free energy of the adhesive layer and that of the flexible film is desired as this increases the adhesive force between the layers as taught in Fukagawa.
Machida and Fukagawa are analogous because they are similar in structure and function as each describes adhesive sheets used with display devices
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surface free energy of the adjacent layers to a small difference as described in Fukagawa in order to enhance the adhesion force between the layers.
Regarding claim 4, Machida teaches that the adhesive layer has a thickness of from 1-10 microns, see p. 4, [0034].
Regarding claim 5, Machida discloses a protective film used for an optical surface such as a display, see abstract and p.1, [0001-0003]. The film is flexible as Machida states that the base layer has a thickness of from 20 to 100 microns, preferably 25 to 80 microns, see p. 4, [0035], and is able to conform to an adherend, see p. 3, [0030]. Thus the film is considered suitable for use in a flexible display as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida (U.S. Pub. 2019/0070833) and Fukagawa (U.S. Pub. 2020/0115480) as applied above, and further in view of Xie (U.S. Pub. 2021/0223832).
Regarding claim 2, Machida and Fukagawa are relied upon as described above. However, they do not specify the absolute value difference of a coefficient of linear expansion of a flexible film and the adhesive layer to be 25 ppm/K or less as claimed.
Xie similarly describes a flexible circuit board used in a display panel, see abstract and p. 1, [0007-0012]. The flexible circuit board is adjacent to a non-flexible component. Xie teaches that the difference of thermal expansion coefficients between the flexible component and non-flexible component should be small, particularly less than 40% of the value of the thermal expansion coefficient of the flexible circuit board, so that instability and low manufacturing yield caused by a large difference in thermal expansion coefficients can be avoided. Example values of these coefficients are 2.49 ppm/°C for the flexible control circuit board and 3 to 3.5 ppm/°C for the non-flexible circuit board, see p. 3, [0055]. The difference in absolute value is less than 25 ppm/K as claimed.
Machida, Fukagawa, and Xie are analogous because they are similar in structure and function as they describe laminate components used in display panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use adjacent materials with a low difference in thermal expansion coefficient as taught in Xie in order to arrive at the claimed invention, as Xie teaches that low differences in thermal expansion coefficients can reduce instability and low manufacturing yield, see p. 3, [0055].
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 27 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 8 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights