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(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As recited, both claim 1 and claim 25 requires the respective hard coating layers to comprise a) a siloxane-epoxy-based compound. It is noted that while the hard coating comprises b) a product produced from curing of a hard coating composition that contains an alkoxysilane having an epoxy group, b) is different from what is required in claim 1. Main salient difference is that an epoxy group is a functional group that undergoes change during curing (specifically, ring-opening), and the Specification is quite clear that curing does indeed take place. (Spec. ¶¶ 00114-00117). In particular, the Specification notes that the putative “siloxane-epoxy-based compound” is a condensate of an alkoxysilane having an epoxy group. (Id. ¶ 00116). Furthermore, interpretation b) is clearly recited in the correct manner in claims 12 and 30.
For prior art rejection below, interpretation b) is taken, and it is suggested that the limitation in question be amended to be in concordance with what is disclosed in ¶ 00116 of the Specification.
As claims 2, 4-6, and 8-24 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2, 4-6, and 8-24 are also held to be rejected.
As claims 26-35 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 25, claims 26-35 are also held to be rejected.
Claims 12 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As phrased, each of claims 12 and 30, though factually correct, nonetheless conflicts with what is required in claims 1 and 25, respectively.
As claims 13 and 14 depend on claim 12, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 12, claims 12 and 13 are also held to be rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of claims 6, 22, and 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-17, and 24; and claims 25-30, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0310494 A1 (“Ahn”) in view of U.S. 2021/0095174 A1 (“Ahn ‘174”) and U.S. 2020/0257338 A1 (“Park ‘338”).
Considering claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12-14, and 24; and claims 25, 29, and 30, in various embodiments, Ahn discloses a display device having a first window 4030, a second adhesive 4040, and a second window 4050, wherein the first window can be (and is in specific examples) an ultra-thin glass (UTG). (Ahn ¶¶ 0108-0130, 0205-0215; and Fig. 9, reproduced infra). In particular examples, Ahn discloses that its first window is UTG and that its second window is made of polyimide. (Id. ¶ 0191). This second window 4050 maps onto the claimed base film. Ahn is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (protective cover plate for a foldable display device). (Id. ¶ 0075). Ahn differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: the provision of various coatings applied above and below the second window made of PI.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For layers below the second window made of PI, in the art of foldable displays, Ahn ‘174 teaches an antistatic PI film that can serve as an outermost window of a display. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0142-0145). In particular, the antistatic PI film comprises a PI substrate having applied to both main surfaces thereof antistatic layers. (Id. ¶ 0043 and Fig. 2). Furthermore, Ahn ‘174 teaches that a hard coating, an anti-fingerprint layer, and a low-refractive index layer may be further included between its base PI substrate and each of its antistatic layers. (Id. ¶ 0046). As Ahn ‘174 expressly states that a low-refractive index layer can be placed between the PI substrate and an antistatic layer, and as the lower antistatic layer in Fig. 2 of Ahn ‘174 represents one of a very limited possible locations for placement of an antistatic layer, inclusion of a low-refractive index layer between the PI substrate and the lower antistatic layer is deemed obvious.
It is readily apparent from the discussion of ¶ 0046 of Ahn ‘174 that the insertion of a single layer between the polyimide layer 10 and an antistatic layer 20 is allowed. As implied, inserting of one layer means there is no other change, and with the polyimide layer 10 and an antistatic layer 20 generically shown as directly abutting, insertion of a single layer (which can be a low-refractive index layer according to Ahn ‘174) means that the inserted layer directly abuts both the polyimide layer 10 and the lower antistatic layer 20.
With low-refractive commonly understood to be refractive index of 1.50 or lower, and with PI having refractive index of ~1.55 to ~1.65, the low-refractive index layer reads on the claimed optical layer. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to use the anti-static PI film of Ahn ‘174 for the second window, to reduce build up of static electricity. (Ahn ‘174 ¶ 0012).
As for the hard coating layer above the claimed window film, Ahn teaches a hard coat formed from epoxysilane, in particular one from a silsesquioxane containing epoxy group and with optional usage of epoxy-based crosslinkers. (Ahn ¶¶ 0124-0128 and 0132). It is further noted that the sequence of polymeric base/ hard coat/ antistatic layer/ anti-fingerprint layer is known from Park ‘338. (Park ‘338 ¶¶ 0083-0093 and Fig. 7). As such the provision of various layers above the PI substrate is known in view of the teachings of Ahn and Park ‘338. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to have applied the layer sequence taught in Park ‘338 to Ahn, for the layer sequence is exhibits both anti-static properties and hardness.
Ahn as modified by Ahn ‘174 and Park ‘338 renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12-14, and 24; and claims 25, 29, and 30.
Considering claims 5 and 28 shatterproof coating 4060 in Ahn may be applied as to be above and below the UTG first window layer 4030. (Ahn Figs. 7B, 9, and 10). The shatterproof coating above the UTG first window layer but below the second window is deemed a module protective layer.
Considering claim 8, as an alternate to the rejection of claim 1 above, the first window may be a PET film. (Ahn ¶ 0108).
Considering claims 11 and 15, Ahn ‘174 teaches PI base layer having thickness of 10 to 500 µm and hard coat with thickness of 10 µm. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0054 and 0190).
Considering claims 16, 17, and 31, Ahn ‘174 teaches the usage of carbon nanotubes as material responsible for antistatic properties; furthermore, the requisite surface resistance is taught. (Ahn ‘174 ¶¶ 0018-0019 and 0040).
Considering claims 23 and 35, in view of the provision of anti-reflective layers on the second window of Ahn, the limitation of claim 23 is obvious. (Ahn ¶ 0120).
Considering claims 26 and 27, as the anti-fingerprint layer is the outermost layer, and as the display device of Ahn is foldable, the configurations recited can be readily obtained.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn, Ahn ‘174, and Park ‘338, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0239360 A1 (“Huang”).
Considering claims 8 and 9, in various embodiments, Ahn discloses its shatterproof layer 4060 (viz. a layer that absorbs shock) to be located above and below its first window 4030 made of a UTG glass having a thin central region. (Ahn ¶¶ 0124 and 0125; and Fig. 10). Ahn differs from claim 8, as it does not disclose usage of PET film. However, usage of PET as a shatterproof material is well-known in the art of glass for display purposes, as is taught in Huang. (Huang ¶¶ 0019 and 0036). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use PET as material for the shatterproof layer of Ahn, as Huang is considered to have demonstrated that PET is a material known in the art for preventing shattering of glass. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 18-21; and claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn, Ahn ‘174, and Park ‘338, as respectively applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0239360 A1 (“Minowa”).
Considering claims 18-21; and claims 32 and 33, the usage of an alkoxysilane having a polyalkylene glycol group and a perfluorinated moiety to form an anti-fouling layer that suppresses presence of fingerprints and exhibits high water contact angle is well-known in the art. (Minowa ¶¶ 0035-0042). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used the fluorinated silanes named in Minowa to form the antifingerprint layer, for the benefits mentioned in Minowa. (Id. ¶ 0013).
Response to Arguments
Although respective amendments to claims 1 and 25 resolved some of the indefiniteness issues present in the claims, the amendments did not address all issues of indefiniteness, and all pending claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Similarly, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 30, and claims dependent thereupon, are maintained.
In view of amendments to claim 26, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 26 has been withdrawn.
In view of amendments to claim 1, the prior art rejections relying upon at least Saylor have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s contentions against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over at least Ahn, Ahn ‘174 and Park ‘338 have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Though direct deposition of a low-refractive layer between the polyimide layer 10 and antistatic layer 20 is not stated in haec verba, it is readily apparent from the discussion of ¶ 0046 of Ahn ‘174 that the insertion of a single layer between the polyimide layer 10 and an antistatic layer 20 is allowed. As implied, inserting of one layer means there is no other change, and with the polyimide layer 10 and an antistatic layer 20 generically shown as directly abutting, insertion of a single layer (which can be a low-refractive index layer according to Ahn ‘174) means that the inserted layer directly abuts both the polyimide layer 10 and the lower antistatic layer 20.
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights