DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed on April 13, 2026 has been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claim 16 is canceled. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are now pending of which claims 12-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn and claims 1-11 and 21 are under consideration.
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.
3. Claims 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0273205 A1) in view of Schwartz et al. (US 2021/0163802 A1).
Lee et al. disclose a display device DD with a flat or curved display surface. The display device DD may be a rigid display device or may be a flexible display device and may include a foldable display device or a bendable display device that is rollable, bendable, foldable, etc. (meeting the limitations of claim 9). The display device DD may be applied to a mobile phone terminal as shown in the Examples or to a large-sized electronic device, such as a television set and a display monitor, and a small and medium-sized electronic device, such as a tablet computer, a car navigation unit, a game unit and a smart watch (meeting the limitations of claim 21). The display device DD (equivalent to the display device of the claimed invention) may include a display panel DP (equivalent to the display panel of the claimed invention), an input sensor ISL (e.g., input sensing layer), an anti-reflector RPP (e.g., anti-reflective layer) (equivalent to the function layer and/or the optical layer of the claimed invention), and a window WP (equivalent to the window of the claimed invention). One of more of the components of the display panel DP, the input sensor ISL, the anti-reflector RPP and the window WP may be provided or formed through successive processes or may be provided or formed separately from each other and subsequently attached to each other by a fixing member such as an adhesive member ADS (equivalent to the adhesive layer disposed between the functional layer and the window of the claimed invention). The display device DD may further include a protective member disposed on a lower surface of the display panel DP. The protective member and the display panel DP may be coupled to each other by the adhesive member ADS and the window WP may further include a functional coating layer disposed on a front surface of the base layer WP-BS which is opposite to the rear surface thereof. The functional coating layer may include an anti-fingerprint layer, an anti-reflective layer and/or a hard coating layer (meeting the limitations of claim 10). (see Abstract, Figures, and paragraphs 0053-0076).
Lee et al. do not teach that the adhesive layer disposed between the functional layer and the window has a thermal decomposition starting temperature of about 300°C or higher and a thermal decomposition peak temperature of about 350°C or higher.
However, Shwartz et al. disclose dual cure transfer films that include a siloxane-based matrix formed by thermal curing of a siloxane with thermally curable groups, a silsesquioxane with UV-curable groups that is dispersed within the siloxane-based matrix, and a UV photoinitiator. The transfer film is an adhesive and can be cured by UV radiation to form a non-tacky cured layer, where the non-tacky cured layer is optically transparent. In preferred embodiments at least one siloxane comprising thermally curable groups comprises a siloxane with epoxy functional groups (meeting the limitations of claim 8); and the at least one silsesquioxane comprising UV-curable groups comprises a (meth)acrylate functional silsesquioxane. In optical applications, a wide range of material layers are used, some of these are adhesive, but often other types of layers are used. Transfer films have been developed, where the coating is “pre-made” as a film and the film is transferred to the substrate surface. In some cases, the transfer film is curable, so that after the film is transferred it can be cured on the substrate surface so that it adheres strongly to the substrate surface. The Examples show that siloxane dual-cure resin formulations were prepared and tested. The materials were applied to substrates, thermally and UV cured, and the optical, adhesive and thermal decomposition properties were evaluated. Pieces of the fully cured resins (about 10 mg each) were placed in a tared aluminum pan inside a Q500 Thermogravimetric Analyzer from TA Instruments (New Castle, Del.). The heating rate selected was 10° C./min up to 550° C. The decomposition temperatures were defined by the temperatures at which the cured resin has decomposed to 95% (Td5%), 90% (Td10%) and 80% (Td20%) of its original weight. The results are shown in Table 6 and show that the decomposition temperatures range from 309-456oC. The Examples show that the films were set to a 30 micrometer setting (meeting the limitations of claim 6); (See Abstract, Examples and paragraphs 0004, 0008, 0091, and 0092, 0105, and Table 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a siloxane-based transfer film in the display device disclosed by Lee et al. given that Schwartz et al. specifically teach that transfer film with siloxane with epoxy functional groups can be used in optical applications as adhesives so that after the film is transferred it can be cured on the substrate surface so that it adheres strongly to the substrate surface.
With regards to the limitation that the first storage modulus of the adhesive layer at 60°C is in a range of about 10 KPa to about 50 Kpa and a second storage modulus of the adhesive layer at a temperature in a range of about 150°C to about 200°C is about 0.7 times or less the first storage modulus, as recited in claim 4 and 5, the Examiner takes the position that a limitation is inherent in the adhesive transfer films taught by Schwartz et al. given that the chemical composition of the adhesive as taught try Schwartz et al. and that of the claimed invention are identical.
With regards to the limitations that the edge of the adhesive layer, the functional layer, and the edge of the display panel are aligned with each other, that on a plane perpendicular to a thickness direction, an area of the adhesive layer is greater than an area of the window, that a cross section parallel to a thickness direction, an edge of the window is disposed further inward than an edge of the
protective adhesive layer, as recited in claims 2, 3, and 11, the Examiner takes the position that aesthetic changes which do not have a mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the changes in shape does not result in a product which is distinct from the reference display device.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants traverse the rejection of claims 1-11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0273205 A1) in view of Schwartz et al. (US 2021/0163802 A1) and submit that Schwartz does not disclose an adhesive layer disposed between the functional layer and the window, wherein the adhesive layer has a thermal decomposition starting temperature of about 300°C or higher and a thermal decomposition peak temperature of about 350°C or higher, wherein the thermal decomposition peak temperature is defined as a temperature at which an amount of weight loss or gas generation caused by thermal decomposition is maximized, and wherein the thermal decomposition starting temperature is defined as a temperature at which the weight loss or the gas generation caused by the thermal decomposition starts. Applicants state that Schwartz merely discloses fixed percentage thresholds (Td5%, Ta10%, Td20%) to define decomposition, while being silent as to a thermal decomposition starting temperature of about 300°C or higher and that the siloxane resin of Schwartz hitting 309°C at a 5% weight loss (Ta5%) does not inherently mean that is the starting point of decomposition.
In response, the Examiner would like to point out that the preferred adhesive transfer films taught by Schwartz et al. comprise a siloxane with epoxy functional groups and the at least one silsesquioxane comprising UV-curable groups comprises a (meth)acrylate functional silsesquioxane and is identical to the adhesive used by the Applicants in the instant application, and hence must have an identical thermal decomposition starting temperature and an identical thermal decomposition peak temperature. If it is Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) persuasive evidence would need to be provided to support this position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure in that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed components.
Applicants further state that as defined in the detailed description at paragraph [0090], the starting temperature and peak temperature are measured as the physical onset and the maximum rate of decomposition and are critical to the high thermal stability desired for the laser manufacturing process and the resulting reliability, as shown in Table 1 and as stated in the paragraph [0121].
First, as to the assertion of unexpected results, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. The Specification presents no factual evidence to show that results were actually unexpected in comparison to the results in the prior art. Second, once unexpected results have been established, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the showing.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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 at 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 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights