DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0133342A1) [hereinafter Choi].
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a display device (Figs. 1-10) comprising a display panel (120); a shock absorbing panel above the display panel (layers 114, 116 and/or 116’) having a Young’s modulus of equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 700 MPa to about 1200 MPa, and comprising a support film (116) and a buffer layer (114 or 116’) below the support film, and a window above the shock-absorbing panel and comprising a glass substrate (112).
Choi fails to specifically teach a strain of about 0.025% to about 0.5%. Choi, however, does teach the strain may be equal to about 1%.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strain of the shock-absorbing panel in Choi to be about 0.025% to about 0.5%, 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. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Furthermore, Choi fails to specifically teach the support film having a Young’s modulus that is greater than a Young’s modulus of the buffer layer.
Choi teaches both the support film and the buffer layer having a Young’s modulus equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus of the support film and the buffer layer in Choi to have the support film having a greater Young’s modulus than the buffer layer, if so desired, in order to provide the desired impact resistance.
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the support film (116) having a Young’s modulus greater than 800 MPa, which includes of about 1200 MPa to about 2000 MPa (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the support film being thicker than the buffer layer (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses the buffer layer (114 or 116’) having a thickness of about 20 µm to about 30 µm, and wherein the support film (116) has a thickness of about 35µm to about 45 µm (paragraphs [0016], [0154] and [0180]).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the shock absorbing panel (Figs. 3-4) further comprising a sub support film (116) above the support film (116’).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the sub support film, the support film and the buffer layer each having a Young’s modulus equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus of the sub support film, the support film and the buffer layer in Choi to have the sub support film having a greater Young’s modulus than the support film and the buffer layer, if so desired, in order to provide the desired impact resistance.
Regarding claim 10, Choi discloses the sub support film (116) having a Young’s modulus greater than 800 MPa, which includes of about 3000 MPa to about 4000 MPa (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses the sub support film (116 or 114) being thinner than the support film and the buffer layer (claims 17-21; paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 12, Choi fails to specifically teach the sub support film having a thickness of about 5 µm to about 15µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the sub support film in Choi to be about 5 µm to about 15µm, 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. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses the shock absorbing panel having a thickness of about 60 µm to 80 µm (paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses the window having a thickness of about 10 µm to about 300µm (claim 10; paragraph [0028] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses a protection layer above the window wherein the protection layer comprises polyimide (paragraph [0146]).
Regarding claim 16, Choi discloses a display device (Figs. 1-10) comprising a display panel (120); a shock absorbing panel above the display panel (layers 114, 116 and/or 116’) having a Young’s modulus of equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 700 MPa to about 1200 MPa, and comprising a support film (114 or 116) comprising at least one of an amide-based resin, an ester-based resin, an ether-based resin or a carbonate-based resin (paragraphs [0086] and [0095]), and a buffer layer (114 or 114’or 116’) comprising at least one of an acryl-based resin, a urethane-based resin or a silicone-based resin (paragraphs [0086] and [0095]), and below the support film, and a window above the shock-absorbing panel and comprising a glass substrate (112).
Choi fails to specifically teach a strain of about 0.025% to about 0.5%. Choi, however, does teach the strain may be equal to about 1%.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strain of the shock-absorbing panel in Choi to be about 0.025% to about 0.5%, 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. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Furthermore, Choi fails to specifically teach the support film having a Young’s modulus that is greater than a Young’s modulus of the buffer layer.
Choi teaches both the support film and the buffer layer having a Young’s modulus equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus of the support film and the buffer layer in Choi to have the support film having a greater Young’s modulus than the buffer layer, if so desired, in order to provide the desired impact resistance.
Regarding claim 17, Choi discloses the support film being thicker than the buffer layer (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 18, Choi discloses the shock absorbing panel comprising a sub support film (116) above the support film (114 or 116’). Choi teaches the sub support film, the support film and the buffer layer having a Young’s modulus equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115] and [0132]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus of the sub support film, the support film and the buffer layer in Choi to have the sub support film having a greater Young’s modulus than the support film and the buffer layer, if so desired, in order to provide the desired impact resistance.
Regarding claim 21, recites a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. 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. As shown above, Choi clearly teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed display device. Accordingly, the display device of Choi is capable of performing the intended use recited in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Choi (US 2020/0133342A1), fails to teach or reasonably suggest the distinct feature of “wherein, with respect to the strain, the buffer layer has a Young’s modulus of about 10 MPa to about 30 MPa”, as recited in independent claim 4.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/20/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Paragraph [0092] of Choi explicitly provides that ‘the density and modulus of elasticity of the [alleged support film/]stress relief layer 116 may be less than the density and modulus of elasticity of the [alleged buffer layer/]bonding layer 114’. In other words, Choi does not appear to disclose that the Young’s Modulus of the alleged support film 116 is greater than the Young’s Modulus of the alleged buffer layer 114/116, and one skilled in the art would have not been motivated to, and, instead, would have been deterred from, relying on the cited portions of Choi to arrive at ‘wherein the support film has a greater Young’s modulus than the buffer layer’, as now recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 16”.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. It is to be pointed out that Choi recites in paragraph [0092] that “in an exemplary embodiment, the density and modulus of elasticity of the stress relief layer 116 (alleged support film) may be less than the density and modulus of elasticity of the bonding layer 114 (alleged buffer layer)”. This is a preferred embodiment, and does not teach away from the support film having a Young’s modulus that is greater than the Young’s modulus of the buffer layer. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(II). Choi teaches both the support film (116) and the buffer layer (114 or 116’) can have a Young’s modulus equal to or greater than about 800 MPa (paragraphs [0096], [0115], and [0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Young’s modulus for both the support film and the buffer layer in Choi to have the Young’s modulus for the support film greater than the Young’s modulus for the buffer layer, if so desired, in order to provide the desired impact resistance. Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 16 are unpatentable over Choi. Additionally, claims 3-6, 8-15, 17, 18 and 21, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 16, are also unpatentable over Choi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights