DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5, 17, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04September 2025.
Drawings
In view of the changes to the specification filed 19 December 2025, the drawings received on 25 October 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashige et al. (US 2012/0196103) in view of Erdogan-Haug et al. (US 2018/0291238).
Murashige is directed to a transparent substrate comprising a glass plate with a thickness of 10-100 mm and a resin layer on one side (paragraph 0008). The glass and resin layer are attached with an adhesion layer (paragraph 0014). A hard coat may be applied on the side of the resin layer opposite the glass plate (paragraph 0016). The resin has a preferred modulus of elasticity at 25 oC of as high as 7 GPa (paragraph 0047). The transparent substrate may be used to make a display device (paragraph 0020). The adhesion layer is preferably a thermosetting or active energy ray-curable resin (paragraph 0091) having a preferred modulus of elasticity of 1.8 to 4 GPa (paragraph 0093), i.e., 1,800 to 4,000 MPa. The transparent substrate may further comprise a transparent conductive layer (paragraph 0095) that acts as an electromagnetic wave shield (paragraph 0099).
The embodiment of Example 2 illustrates a transparent substrate comprising a 35 mm polyacrylate film adhered to a 50 mm thick glass plate by means of a 3 mm thick adhesion layer (paragraph 0122-0124). In the embodiment of Example 3, a 3 mm thick hard coat layer is formed on the surface of the resin layer oppose the glass plate (paragraph 0126). While the embodiment of Example 2 does not have a hard coat layer, it would have been obvious to apply the hard coat of Example 3 to the transparent substrate of Example 2 to impart chemical resistance, abrasion resistance, and surface smoothness to the resulting transparent substrate (paragraph 0096). Such a transparent substrate would have an (A+B)/C ratio of (35+3)/3 ≈ 14.
Murashige is silent regarding the glass transition temperature of the material used in the adhesion layer, however, it may be an active energy ray-curable resin, such as a silicone-based resin (paragraph 0091).
Erdogan-Haug is directed to an assembly layer for use in a flexible display device (paragraph 0001). The assembly layer is used to attach one flexible substrate to another (paragraph 0008). The assembly layer has good adhesion to plastic films and flexible glass substrates with physical properties, such as modulus and glass transition temperature, selected to provide the assembly layer the ability to withstand repeated folding and unfolding, thus making it suitable for use in a flexible assembly (paragraph 0010). The adhesive may be a cross-linked silicone (paragraph 0011), such as a photo-crosslinked urethane-based silicone (paragraph 0016). The assembly layer should have a glass transition temperature of less than about 10 oC to provide resistance to stresses caused during a folding or unfolding event (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the adhesion layer of Murashige with a adhesive, such as a urethane-based silicone, having a glass transition temperature of less than about 10 oC to provide the resulting transparent substrate resistance to stresses caused during a folding or unfolding event. Since the range of glass transition temperatures taught by the prior art overlaps the range recited in the claims, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, a urethane-based silicone reads on a urethane resin.
Regarding claim 13, while Murashige does not report on cracks, fractures, or peeling after folding the transparent substrate 200,000 times at180o such that the opposing side portions are 10 mm apart, the inventive transparent substrate is designed to prevent the progress of cracks and be excellent in bending property and flexibility (e.g., paragraphs 0001, 0007, and 0023) and have a rupture diameter of preferably 30 mm or less (paragraph 0033). Since the laminate of Murashige may be formed from the same layers (i.e., glass/adhesive/
resin/hard coat), at the same thicknesses (glass of 10-100 mm, (A+B)/C ratio between 3.0 and 500), and is specifically designed to be excellent in bending property and flexibility, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to satisfy the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, the adhesive of Erdogan-Haug is also designed to withstand folding and unfolding events.
Regarding claim 14, Murashige suggests applying a transparent conductive layer over the hard coat layer. The transparent conductive layer reads on a protective layer since it acts as an electromagnetic wave shield.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Murashige teaches that the transparent substrate is designed to be excellent in bending property and flexibility and may be used as in a display device (paragraph 0016). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the transparent substrate in a flexible display device. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to situate the laminate such that a hard coat layer would be on the side away from the display panel of the display device so as to provide the display with anti-abrasion properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashige et al. (US 2012/0196103) in view of Erdogan-Haug et al. (US 2018/0291238) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bellman et al. (US 2016/0365536).
Murashige taken in view of Erdogan-Haug et al. suggests all the limitations of claim 9, as outlined above, except for the use of chemically strengthened glass as the glass film.
Bellman is directed to a flexible display device including a flexible glass sheet (paragraph 0002). The glass sheet may be a chemically strengthened glass (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use chemically strengthened glass as the glass film of Murashige to yield a laminated film with added strength.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashige et al. (US 2012/0196103) in view of Erdogan-Haug et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda (JP 2011-140187).
Murashige taken in view of Erdogan-Haug et al. suggests all the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above, except for the presence of an antireflection layer on the hard coating layer. However, Murashige does teach that the transparent substrate can include any appropriate other layer on the side of the resin layer opposing the glass (paragraph 0095).
Ikeda teaches that separate functional layers, such as an antireflection, may be applied to the laminated film in addition to a hard coat layer (paragraph 0087). It would have been obvious to apply an antireflection over the hard coating layer to provide an antireflection property to the display formed from the resulting transparent substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 8-16 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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. 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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787