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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/13/26 is acknowledged. By this election, claims 15-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-14 will be examined in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2022/0059796).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (Figs. 5-9) discloses a method of manufacturing a display apparatus, the method comprising: preparing a window 100 (Fig. 5, [0040]), wherein the window 100 includes a rear protection film 300 ([0040]), a window substrate 120 ([0041]), a front protection film (110, 140), and a carrier protection film 200 (Fig. 5, [0040]); removing the rear protection film 300 ([0055]) and attaching a lower structure 2000 of the display apparatus to the window substrate 100 (Fig. 6, [0041]); and removing the carrier protection film 200 (Fig. 8, [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim (Figs. 6) discloses wherein the front protection film comprises a first adhesive layer 140 and a first base film 110.
Regarding claim 4, Kim (Figs. 6) discloses wherein a thickness of the first base film 110 is in a range of about 70 µm to about 130 µm ([0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim (Figs. 6) discloses wherein the carrier protection film 200 comprises a third adhesive layer 220 ([0047]) and a second base film 210 ([0046]).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2022/0059796).
Regarding claims 11-12, Kim discloses all the claimed limitations as discussed above except for wherein a thickness of the second base film is in a range of about 35 µm to 65 µm (claim 11); and wherein a thickness of the third adhesive layer is in a range of about 10 µm to about 20 µm (claim 12). However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the thickness of the second base film and the third adhesive layer as claimed, because the dimensions are not critical since they can be optimized during routine experimentation, depending upon the device in a particular application.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 13-14, Kim discloses all the claimed limitations as discussed above except for a release force of the front protection film is in a range of about 12 g.f/inch to about 30 g.f/inch (claim 5) and wherein a surface resistance of the front protection film is in a range of about 105Q /sq to about 10110/sq (claim 6). However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the claimed of the range of the release force and a surface resistance of the front protection film was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the planar surface of the entire upper surface of the layer of material would yield unexpected result. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Kim by forming a display apparatus as claimed, because the range of the release force and a surface resistance of the front protection film can be varied for other implementations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-8 and 10 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose all the limitations recited in the above claims. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the front protection film further comprises at least one selected from a first antistatic layer and a second antistatic layer (claim 3); or wherein the window further comprises a second adhesive layer, a film layer, and a hard coating layer, which are arranged between the window substrate and the front protection film (claim 7); or wherein the carrier protection film further comprises at least one selected from a third antistatic layer and a fourth antistatic layer (claim 10).
The dependent claims being further limiting and definite are also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THERESA T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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, WAEL FAHMY can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/THERESA T DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814