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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-18 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.
Independent Claims 1 comprise the phrase “wherein the coating layer is disposed on an outermost surface of the display device, and wherein a surface hardness of the display device is substantially identical to a surface hardness of the coating layer” in lines 7-8. The Claim recites that the cover module is part of the display device and the cover module includes a coating layer in lines 1-5. It is not clear from the Claim language if the coating layer is part of the display device or on top of the display device. Further clarification and/or correction is required. Moreover, if the coating layer is the outer part of the display device, they would inherently have the same hardness, not substantially the same. Furthermore, the term substantially is not clearly defined in the Specification. As the metes and bounds of the term “substantially” are not properly defined, the claims are properly rejected as being indefinite. Claims 2-17 are rejected based on their dependence on Claim 1.
Independent Claims 18 comprise the phrase “wherein the coating layer is disposed on an outermost surface of the cover module, and wherein a surface hardness of the cover module is substantially identical to a surface hardness of the coating layer” in lines 4-6. The Claim recites that the cover module includes a coating layer in lines 1-3. It is not clear from the Claim language if the coating layer is part of the cover module or on top of the cover module. Further clarification and/or correction is required. Moreover, if the coating layer is the outer part of the cover module, they would inherently have the same hardness, not substantially the same. Furthermore, the term substantially is not clearly defined in the Specification. As the metes and bounds of the term “substantially” are not properly defined, the claims are properly rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al (US 2021/0139735).
With respect to Claim 1, Lim et al discloses a display device (Figure 1A) comprising: a display panel (Figure 1A, 200); and a cover module (Figure 1A, 100, 501, 400, 300, 502) disposed on the display panel (Figure 1A, 200), wherein the cover module (Figure 1A, 100, 501, 400, 300, 502) includes an adhesive layer(Figure 1A, 502) disposed on the display panel (Figure 1A, 200) and a coating layer (Figure 1A, 100); wherein the coating layer (Figure 1A, 100) is disposed on an outermost surface of the display device (Figure !A, top) , and wherein a surface hardness of the display device is substantially identical to a surface hardness of the coating layer (inherent as the coating layer is the outermost surface of the display device). See Figure 1A and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 83-90 and 113-118.
With respect to Claim 4, Lim et al discloses wherein the cover module includes a polarizing plate (Figure 1A, 400) disposed on the adhesive layer (Figure 1A, 502) ; and a second adhesive layer (Figure 1A, 501) disposed on the polarizing plate (Figure 1A, 400), wherein the coating layer (Figure 1A, 100) is disposed on the second adhesive layer (Figure 1A, 501). See Figure 1A and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 83-90 and 113-118.
With respect to Claim 18, Lim et al discloses a cover module (Figure 1A, 100, 501, 400, 300, 502), comprising: an adhesive layer (Figure 1A, 501); and a coating layer (Figure 1A, 100), wherein the coating layer is disposed on an outermost surface of the cover module (Figure 1A, 100), and wherein a surface hardness of the cover module is substantially identical to a surface hardness of the coating layer (inherent as the outer layer of the coating layer is the outermost layer of the cover module. See Figure 1A and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 83-90 and 113-118.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US 2021/0139735).
Lim et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Lim et al does not exemplify the claimed components and their physical characteristics, as required by the Claims at hand.
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “ further comprising a release agent layer, wherein the release agent layer includes at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester or fluorine”, Lim et al discloses the use of slipping agents, and release agents including fluorine components. See paragraphs 5, 22, 28 and 112. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the listed release agents in the cover module of Lim et al, as the use of a known component, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claims 4 and 2. With respect to the limitation “a release agent material disposed on the second adhesive layer, wherein the coating layer is disposed on the second adhesive layer”, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed limitation as Lim et al disclose the release agents are part of the coating layer. See paragraphs 5, 22, 28 and 112
With respect to Claim 6, and the limitation “ further comprising a release agent layer, wherein the release agent layer includes at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester or fluorine”, Lim et al discloses the use of slipping agents, and release agents including fluorine components. See paragraphs 5, 22, 28 and 112. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the listed release agents in the cover module of Lim et al, as the use of a known component, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 7, and the limitation “wherein the thickness of the release agent material layer is less than a thickness of the coating layer and a thickness of the second adhesive layer”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed thicknesses, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136. In the present case, the thickness of the layers would be optimized depending on the amount of adhesion or protection desired.
With respect to Claim 8, and the limitation “where a pencil hardness of the coating layer is less than or substantially equal to a pencil hardness of glass and greater than a pencil hardness of polyimide and polyester”, Lim et al discloses the use of glass. See paragraphs 79 and 145.
With respect to Claim 9, Lim et al discloses wherein the coating layer comprises a thickness of 200 microns. See paragraph 77.
With respect to Claim 10, and the limitation pertaining to the modulus of the coating layer , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed modulus as Lim et al discloses the same materials, which would have the same properties. Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 11, Lim et al discloses wherein the adhesive layer comprises a thickness of 10 microns. See paragraph 107.
With respect to Claim 12, and the limitation pertaining to the modulus of the adhesive layer , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed modulus as Lim et al discloses the same materials, which would have the same properties. Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 13, and the limitation “wherein the display device is capable of folding, bending, sliding and rolling and wherein the display device comprises a bending radius of 1.5R to 7.0 R”, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the afore mentioned properties for display devices are well known in the art..
With respect to Claim 14, Lim et al discloses wherein the cover module further includes a rigidity reinforcement layer disposed under the adhesive layer configured to provide a surface rigidity to the cover module. See paragraph 86.
With respect to Claim 15, Lim et al discloses wherein the rigidity reinforcement layer includes chemically tempered glass. See paragraphs 79 and 145.
With respect to Claim 17, and the limitation “wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer is less than a thickness of the rigidity reinforcement layer and a thickness of the coating layer, and wherein the adhesive layer comprises a thickness of 5 to 15 microns”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed thicknesses, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136. In the present case, the thickness of the layers would be optimized depending on the amount of adhesion or reinforcement desired.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US 2021/0139735 as applied to claims 1-15 and 17 above, and further in view of Virkar et al (US 2016/0096967).
Lim et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Lim et al does not disclose “wherein the coating layer includes at least one of acrylate siloxane or epoxy siloxane”.
Virkar et al discloses the use of coating layers which include epoxy siloxane in display devices. See paragraphs 5, 90 and 110.
With respect to Claim 3, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use epoxy siloxane in the display device of Lim et al, for its known benefit in the art as a coating in display devices as disclosed by Virkar et al. The use of a known component, for its known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
February 19, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812