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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 1 of Fujita teaches A display device comprising: a display panel (Item 1); an adhesive layer (Item 3) on the display panel (Item 1); a cover layer (Item 5) on the adhesive layer (Item 3); and a light blocking layer (Item 6) directly between the adhesive layer (Item 3) and the cover layer (Item 5), wherein a surface curing rate of a first area of the adhesive layer overlapping the light blocking layer in a plan view is substantially equal to a surface curing rate of a second area of the adhesive layer which is not overlapping the light blocking layer in the plan view (Where the adhesive material layer is uniform throughout the layer and thus would have the same surface curing rate).
Fujita does not teach where the light blocking layer is directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
Fig. 7 of Tung teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 124a) is directly on an uppermost surface of an adhesive layer (Item 126)such that an entirety of the light blocking layer (Item 124a) is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer be directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device because this configuration allows the light blocking layer to shield opaque devices such as peripheral circuits while not affecting the image quality of a flexible display panel (Tung Paragraph 0020).
Fujita does not teach where the light blocking layer is curved.
Layouni teaches where an adhesive layer (Item 242) and a cover layer (Item 232) are curved over an OLED display panel (Item 240).
It would have been to have the cover layer and the adhesive layer to be curved because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
When the cover layer and the adhesive layer are curved as taught by Layouni above, the light blocking layer between the cover layer and the adhesive layer will also be curved.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fujita, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fujita does not teach where the cover layer includes a curved surface.
Layouni teaches where a cover layer (Item 232) has a curved surface (Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer include a curved surface because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Fujita further teaches where a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa (Paragraph 0055).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding claim 13, Fig. 1 of Kikuchi teaches A display device comprising: a display panel (Item 10); an adhesive layer (Item 40) on the display panel (Item 10); a cover layer (Item 21) on the adhesive layer (Item 40); and a light blocking layer (Item 22) between the adhesive layer (Item 40) and the cover layer (Item 21), wherein a surface curing rate of a first area of the adhesive layer overlapping the light blocking layer in a plan view is substantially equal to a surface curing rate of a second area of the adhesive layer which is not overlapping the light blocking layer in a plan view (Where the adhesive material layer is uniform throughout the layer and thus would have the same surface curing rate).
Kikuchi does not teach where the light blocking layer is directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
Fig. 7 of Tung teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 124a) is directly on an uppermost surface of an adhesive layer (Item 126)such that an entirety of the light blocking layer (Item 124a) is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer be directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device because this configuration allows the light blocking layer to shield opaque devices such as peripheral circuits while not affecting the image quality of a flexible display panel (Tung Paragraph 0020).
Kikuchi does not teach where the light blocking layer is curved.
Layouni teaches where an adhesive layer (Item 242) and a cover layer (Item 232) are curved over an OLED display panel (Item 240).
It would have been to have the cover layer and the adhesive layer to be curved because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
When the cover layer and the adhesive layer are curved as taught by Layouni above, the light blocking layer between the cover layer and the adhesive layer will also be curved.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kikuchi, Tung and Layouni teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kikuchi does not teach where the cover layer includes a curved surface.
Layouni teaches where a cover layer (Item 232) has a curved surface (Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer include a curved surface because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Kikuchi further teaches where a modulus of a cured adhesive layer is between 103 Pa and 106 Pa at room temperature (Paragraph 0085).
Claims 1 and 2, 5-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie et al. (US 20220002493) hereinafter “Sugie” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and in further view of Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 3 of Sugie teach a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: providing an adhesive material layer (Item 15) on a display panel (Item 21); curing the adhesive material layer to form an adhesive layer (Item S21); providing a cover layer (Item 20) on the adhesive layer (Item 15); and adhering the cover layer (Item 20) to the adhesive layer (Item 15).
Sugie does not explicitly teach where a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa.
Kikuchi teaches where a modulus of a cured adhesive layer is between 103 Pa and 106 Pa at room temperature (Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa because this allows the internal stress of the adhesive to be effectively absorbed by the elasticity of the adhesive itself such that the display qualities of the display device can be improved (Kikuchi Paragraph 0085).
Sugie does not teach where providing a light blocking layer on the adhesive layer after forming the adhesive layer, the light blocking layer is directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
Fig. 7 of Tung teaches providing a light blocking layer (Item 124a) directly on an uppermost surface of an adhesive layer (Item 126) such that an entirety of the light blocking layer (Item 124a) is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light blocking layer on the adhesive layer after forming the adhesive layer, the light blocking layer directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device because this configuration allows the light blocking layer to shield opaque devices such as peripheral circuits while not affecting the image quality of a flexible display panel (Tung Paragraph 0020).
When the cover layer and the adhesive layer are curved as taught by Sugie above (Paragraph 0189 where the display may be curved), the light blocking layer between the cover layer and the adhesive layer will also be curved.
Regarding claim 2, Sugie further teaches where a cover layer (Item 232) has a curved surface (Paragraph 0189 where the display may be curved).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sugie, Kikuchi and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a surface curing rate of the adhesive layer is about 85% or greater.
However, Sugie teaches where a fast curing rate is achieved such that a step of adhering at room temperature is easier (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a surface curing rate of the adhesive layer be about 85% or greater because this prevents curing defects and the like in the adhering step from occurring at room temperature (Sugie Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sugie, Kikuchi and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer is about 85% or greater.
However, Sugie teaches where a fast curing rate is achieved such that a step of adhering at room temperature is easier (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer be about 85% or greater because this prevents curing defects and the like in the adhering step from occurring at room temperature (Sugie Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 7, Sugie further teaches where the adhesive material layer (Item 310a) is provided on the display panel in a liquid state (Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 8, Sugie further teaches where the adhesive layer (Item 15) is in a semi-solid state (Item S21 where the adhesive is only semi-cured).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 3 of Sugie further teaches where the adhesive material layer is cured in an exposed state (Where the cover layer is not adhered to the display panel until after the adhesive material layer is semicured).
Regarding claim 11, Sugie further teaches wherein the curing of the adhesive material layer (Item 15) comprises irradiating (Paragraph 0024) an ultraviolet light onto the adhesive material layer (Item 15).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sugie, Kikuchi and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Sugie does not teach where the curing of the adhesive material layer comprises applying a heat to the adhesive material layer.
Kikuchi further teaches where the curing of the adhesive material layer (Item 40) comprises applying a heat (Paragraph 0050) to the adhesive material layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the curing of the adhesive material layer comprises applying a heat to the adhesive material layer because a thermosetting curable resin is known to be used as an adhesive material layer (Kikuchi Paragraph 0050) and “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;” and/or “(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143; See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Alternately, Claims 1, 2, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and in further view of Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: providing an adhesive material layer (Item 310) on a display panel (Item 100); curing the adhesive material layer (Fig. 4, Item 700) to form an adhesive layer; providing a cover layer (Item 400) on the adhesive layer (Item 310a); and adhering the cover layer (Item 400) to the adhesive layer (Item 310a).
Cho does not teach where a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa.
Kikuchi teaches where a modulus of a cured adhesive layer is between 103 Pa and 106 Pa at room temperature (Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa because this allows the internal stress of the adhesive to be effectively absorbed by the elasticity of the adhesive itself such that the display qualities of the display device can be improved (Kikuchi Paragraph 0085).
Cho does not teach where providing a light blocking layer on the adhesive layer after forming the adhesive layer, the light blocking layer is directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
Fig. 7 of Tung teaches providing a light blocking layer (Item 124a) directly on an uppermost surface of an adhesive layer (Item 126) such that an entirety of the light blocking layer (Item 124a) is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light blocking layer on the adhesive layer after forming the adhesive layer, the light blocking layer directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device because this configuration allows the light blocking layer to shield opaque devices such as peripheral circuits while not affecting the image quality of a flexible display panel (Tung Paragraph 0020).
Cho does not teach where the light blocking layer is curved.
Layouni teaches where an adhesive layer (Item 242) and a cover layer (Item 232) are curved over an OLED display panel (Item 240).
It would have been to have the cover layer and the adhesive layer to be curved because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
When the cover layer and the adhesive layer are curved as taught by Layouni above, the light blocking layer between the cover layer and the adhesive layer will also be curved.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cho, Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Chop does not teach where the cover layer includes a curved surface.
Layouni teaches where a cover layer (Item 232) has a curved surface (Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer include a curved surface because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 7, Cho further teaches where the adhesive material layer (Item 310a) is provided on the display panel in a liquid state (Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 11, Cho further teaches where the curing of the adhesive material layer (Item 310a) comprises irradiating an ultraviolet light (Item 700; Paragraph 0058) onto the adhesive material layer (Item 310a).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cho, Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Cho does not teach where the curing of the adhesive material layer comprises applying a heat to the adhesive material layer.
Kikuchi further teaches where the curing of the adhesive material layer (Item 40) comprises applying a heat (Paragraph 0050) to the adhesive material layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the curing of the adhesive material layer comprises applying a heat to the adhesive material layer because a thermosetting curable resin is known to be used as an adhesive material layer (Kikuchi Paragraph 0050) and “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;” and/or “(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143; See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Alternately, Claims 1, 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho” and Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and in further view of Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Fujita teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: providing (Paragraph 0075) an adhesive material layer (Item 3) on a display panel (Item 1); providing a cover layer (Item 5) on the adhesive layer (Item 3); and adhering the cover layer (Item 5) to the adhesive layer (Item 3); where a modulus of the adhesive layer at room temperature is in a range of about 103 Pa to about 106 Pa (Paragraph 0055).
Fujita does not explicitly teach curing the adhesive material layer to form an adhesive layer.
Fig. 4 of Cho teaches curing an adhesive material (Item 310a) after being deposited to form an adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the adhesive material layer to form an adhesive layer because this pre-cures the adhesive material such that the adhesive material is prevented from flowing so that the adhesive material does not flow out of/off of the display panel (Cho Paragraph 0076).
Fujita does not teach where the light blocking layer is directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
Fig. 7 of Tung teaches where a light blocking layer (Item 124a) is directly on an uppermost surface of an adhesive layer (Item 126)such that an entirety of the light blocking layer (Item 124a) is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light blocking layer be directly on an uppermost surface of the adhesive layer such that an entirety of the light blocking layer is above a low point of the uppermost surface in a thickness direction of the display device because this configuration allows the light blocking layer to shield opaque devices such as peripheral circuits while not affecting the image quality of a flexible display panel (Tung Paragraph 0020).
Fujita does not teach where the light blocking layer is curved.
Layouni teaches where an adhesive layer (Item 242) and a cover layer (Item 232) are curved over an OLED display panel (Item 240).
It would have been to have the cover layer and the adhesive layer to be curved because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
When the cover layer and the adhesive layer are curved as taught by Layouni above, the light blocking layer between the cover layer and the adhesive layer will also be curved.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fujita, Cho, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fujita does not teach where the cover layer includes a curved surface.
Layouni teaches where a cover layer (Item 232) has a curved surface (Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover layer include a curved surface because the curved surface maybe desirable for use in a vehicle interior system (Layouni Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita further teaches where the curing of the adhesive material layer (Item 3) comprises irradiating an ultraviolet light (Paragraph 0068) onto the adhesive material layer (Item 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie et al. (US 20220002493) hereinafter “Sugie” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Youn et al. (US 2023/0203346) hereinafter “Youn”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sugie, Kikuchi and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a viscosity of the adhesive material layer is in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature.
Youn teaches where an adhesive layer has a viscosity of 25 cps or less (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the viscosity of the adhesive material layer be in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternately, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi”, Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Youn et al. (US 2023/0203346) hereinafter “Youn”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cho, Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a viscosity of the adhesive material layer is in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature.
Youn teaches where an adhesive layer has a viscosity of 25 cps or less (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the viscosity of the adhesive material layer be in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternately, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho”, Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Youn et al. (US 2023/0203346) hereinafter “Youn”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fujita, Cho, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a viscosity of the adhesive material layer is in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature.
Youn teaches where an adhesive layer has a viscosity of 25 cps or less (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the viscosity of the adhesive material layer be in a range of about 1 cps to about 30 cps at room temperature because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugie et al. (US 20220002493) hereinafter “Sugie” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Mun et al. (US 2021/0261833) hereinafter “Mun”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sugie, Kikuchi and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature is about 2000 gf/in or greater.
Mun teaches where an adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2000 gf/in (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature be about 2000 gf/in or greater because a cover layer with the adhesive film attached thereto can be prevented or substantially prevented from scattering when broken (Mun Paragraph 0042).
Alternately, Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho” in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi”, Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Mun et al. (US 2021/0261833) hereinafter “Mun”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cho, Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature is about 2000 gf/in or greater.
Mun teaches where an adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2000 gf/in (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature be about 2000 gf/in or greater because a cover layer with the adhesive film attached thereto can be prevented or substantially prevented from scattering when broken (Mun Paragraph 0042).
Alternately, Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Cho (US 2014/0211105) hereinafter “Cho”, Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Mun et al. (US 2021/0261833) hereinafter “Mun”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fujita, Cho, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature is about 2000 gf/in or greater.
Mun teaches where an adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2000 gf/in (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature be about 2000 gf/in or greater because a cover layer with the adhesive film attached thereto can be prevented or substantially prevented from scattering when broken (Mun Paragraph 0042).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Mun et al. (US 2021/0261833) hereinafter “Mun”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Fujita, Tung and Layouni teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature is about 2000 gf/in or greater.
Mun teaches where an adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2000 gf/in (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature be about 2000 gf/in or greater because a cover layer with the adhesive film attached thereto can be prevented or substantially prevented from scattering when broken (Mun Paragraph 0042).
Alternatively, Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Mun et al. (US 2021/0261833) hereinafter “Mun”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kikuchi, Tung and Layouni teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature is about 2000 gf/in or greater.
Mun teaches where an adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2000 gf/in (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a peel strength of the adhesive layer at room temperature be about 2000 gf/in or greater because a cover layer with the adhesive film attached thereto can be prevented or substantially prevented from scattering when broken (Mun Paragraph 0042).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Sugie et al. (US 20220002493) hereinafter “Sugie”.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fujita, Tung and Layouni teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer is about 85% or greater.
Sugie teaches where a fast curing rate is achieved such that a step of adhering at room temperature is easier (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer be about 85% or greater because this prevents curing defects and the like in the adhering step from occurring at room temperature (Sugie Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fujita, Tung and Layouni teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive layer is in a semi-solid state.
Sugie teaches where the adhesive layer (Item 15) is in a semi-solid state (Item S21 where the adhesive is only semi-cured).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive layer be in a semi-solid state because the semicured state is a state in which the adhesive layer is in a non-fluid state such that the adhesive layer doesn’t flow out of/off of the display panel (Sugie Paragraph 0103).
Alternately, Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Sugie et al. (US 20220002493) hereinafter “Sugie”.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except where a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer is about 85% or greater.
Sugie teaches where a fast curing rate is achieved such that a step of adhering at room temperature is easier (Paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a deep curing rate of the adhesive layer be about 85% or greater because this prevents curing defects and the like in the adhering step from occurring at room temperature (Sugie Paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive layer is in a semi-solid state.
Sugie teaches where the adhesive layer (Item 15) is in a semi-solid state (Item S21 where the adhesive is only semi-cured).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive layer be in a semi-solid state because the semicured state is a state in which the adhesive layer is in a non-fluid state such that the adhesive layer doesn’t flow out of/off of the display panel (Sugie Paragraph 0103).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Son et al. (US 2012/0326194) hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fujita, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive material layer comprises a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent.
Son teaches where an adhesive material comprises a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive material layer comprise a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent because the combination of a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent is known to combine to form an adhesive material (Son Paragraph 0104).
Alternately, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Son et al. (US 2012/0326194) hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive material layer comprises a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent.
Son teaches where an adhesive material comprises a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive material layer comprise a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent because the combination of a photocurable acrylic resin, a photoinitiator, a coupling agent, a radical generator and a solvent is known to combine to form an adhesive material (Son Paragraph 0104).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2011/0033720) hereinafter “Fujita” in view of Yun et al. (US 2025/0237795) hereinafter “Yun”.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fujita, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive material layer comprises a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent.
Yun teaches where the adhesive material layer comprises a thermosetting acrylic resin (Paragraph 0011 and 0006), a heat curing agent (Paragraph 0018), a coupling agent (Paragraph 0022), and a solvent (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive material layer comprise a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent because the combination of a a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent is known to combine to form an adhesive material (Yun Paragraph 0006).
Alternately, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (US 2010/0321621) hereinafter “Kikuchi” in view of Layouni et al. (US 2024/0399867) hereinafter “Layouni” and Tung et al. (US 2014/0015772) hereinafter “Tung” and in further view of Yun et al. (US 2025/0237795) hereinafter “Yun”.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kikuchi, Layouni and Tung teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the adhesive material layer comprises a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent.
Yun teaches where the adhesive material layer comprises a thermosetting acrylic resin (Paragraph 0011 and 0006), a heat curing agent (Paragraph 0018), a coupling agent (Paragraph 0022), and a solvent (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive material layer comprise a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent because the combination of a a thermosetting acrylic resin, a heat curing agent, a coupling agent, and a solvent is known to combine to form an adhesive material (Yun Paragraph 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Layouni and Tung.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Layouni and Tung.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891