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
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (PGPub No. 20080012493) in further view of Yamamoto (PGPub No. 20240153685) and Pyun (PGPub No. 20110152394).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device, comprising: a display part for displaying an image (Fig. 4 points to a display apparatus 1000 comprising a deposition member 240 for blocking electromagnetic interference (EMI) and a display panel 500 (display part).).
Lee fails to teach a metal layer disposed above the display part; a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; a reinforcement substrate disposed over the metal layer and made of an amorphous metal thin film; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the metal layer and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler.
Yamamoto teaches a metal layer disposed above the display part; and a reinforcement substrate disposed over the metal layer and made of an amorphous metal thin film (Fig. 1D and [0047] point to a laminate 1 used to shield electromagnetic waves comprising a bottom non-magnetic layer 2 (metal layer) and a magnetic metal layer 3 (reinforcement substrate) comprising an amorphous phase.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamamoto, such that EMI-blocking member in Lee is formed using a metal layer and a reinforcing substrate in order to sufficiently shield electromagnetic waves in a wide frequency range from low frequencies to high frequencies.
Lee et al. still fails to teach a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the metal layer and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler.
Yamamoto in combination with Pyun teaches a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the metal layer and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler (Fig. 1H and [0086] of Yamamoto point to non-metallic layers 4 (first adhesive layer; second adhesive layer). [0007] and [0053] of Pyun point to an adhesive composition comprising an epoxy resin (adhesive polymer material) and an inorganic filler which may include at least one of nickel (particles of a metal material), magnesium oxide (inorganic filler), or any of the other listed materials. [0053] further points to the inorganic filler materials being used alone (second adhesive layer) or as a mixture of two or more thereof (first adhesive layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Pyun, such that a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer are formed in order to improve adhesion, environmental resistance, and the electromagnetic wave shielding effect, with the first adhesive layer further comprising an inorganic filler in order to help facilitate film formation and prevent deterioration of the adhesion.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches a display device, comprising: a display part for displaying an image (Fig. 4 points to a display apparatus 1000 comprising a deposition member 240 for blocking electromagnetic interference (EMI) and a display panel 500 (display part).).
Lee fails to teach a reinforcement substrate disposed above the display part and made of an amorphous metal thin film; a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; a metal layer disposed on the reinforcement substrate; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the reinforcement substrate and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler.
Yamamoto teaches a reinforcement substrate disposed above the display part and made of an amorphous metal thin film; and a metal layer disposed on the reinforcement substrate (Fig. 1D and [0047] point to a laminate 1 used to shield electromagnetic waves comprising a magnetic metal layer 3 (reinforcement substrate) comprising an amorphous phase and a top non-magnetic layer 2 (metal layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamamoto, such that EMI-blocking member in Lee is formed using a metal layer and a reinforcing substrate in order to sufficiently shield electromagnetic waves in a wide frequency range from low frequencies to high frequencies.
Lee et al. still fails to teach a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the reinforcement substrate and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler.
Yamamoto in combination with Pyun teaches a first adhesive layer disposed between the display part and the reinforcement substrate and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material, the first adhesive layer further including an inorganic filler having moisture absorbing properties; and a second adhesive layer disposed between the reinforcement substrate and the metal layer and made of a mixture including particles of a metal material and an adhesive polymer material without the inorganic filler (Fig. 1H and [0086] of Yamamoto point to non-metallic layers 4 (first adhesive layer; second adhesive layer). [0007] and [0053] of Pyun point to an adhesive composition comprising an epoxy resin (adhesive polymer material) and an inorganic filler which may include at least one of nickel (particles of a metal material), magnesium oxide (inorganic filler), or any of the other listed materials. [0053] further points to the inorganic filler materials being used alone (second adhesive layer) or as a mixture of two or more thereof (first adhesive layer).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Pyun, such that a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer are formed in order to improve adhesion, environmental resistance, and the electromagnetic wave shielding effect, with the first adhesive layer further comprising an inorganic filler in order to help facilitate film formation and prevent deterioration of the adhesion.
Regarding claim 11, Pyun teaches wherein a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the second adhesive layer is greater than a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the first adhesive layer (Because the second adhesive layer does not include the inorganic filler found in the first adhesive layer (see claim 1), it is considered obvious that the mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the second adhesive layer would be greater.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Pyun, such that the first adhesive layer has a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material that is less than the ratio found in the second adhesive layer in order to accommodate the total combination of polymer material, metal material, and inorganic filler.
Regarding claim 12, Pyun teaches wherein a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the second adhesive layer is greater than a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the first adhesive layer (Because the second adhesive layer does not include the inorganic filler found in the first adhesive layer (see claim 2), it is considered obvious that the mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material in the second adhesive layer would be greater.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Pyun, such that the first adhesive layer has a mixing ratio of the adhesive polymer material that is less than the ratio found in the second adhesive layer in order to accommodate the total combination of polymer material, metal material, and inorganic filler.
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto teaches wherein the first adhesive layer is made of any one of olefin-based, acrylate-based, urethane-based, and epoxy-based polymer materials ([0086] points to the non-metallic layers 4 (first adhesive layer) comprising a polymer such as acrylic resin, epoxy resin, urethane resin, polyester, silicone resin, polyvinyl acetate, styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, phenol resin, and cyanoacrylate.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamamoto, such that the first adhesive layer comprises an adhesive polymer material in order to further enhance adhesion between layers.
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto teaches wherein the second adhesive layer is made of any one of olefin-based, epoxy-based, acrylate-based, urethane-based, amine-based, phenol-based, and acid anhydride-based polymer materials ([0086] points to the non-metallic layers 4 (second adhesive layer) comprising a polymer such as acrylic resin, epoxy resin, urethane resin, polyester, silicone resin, polyvinyl acetate, styrene-butadiene rubber, nitrile rubber, phenol resin, and cyanoacrylate.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamamoto, such that the second adhesive layer comprises an adhesive polymer material in order to further enhance adhesion between layers.
Regarding claim 18, Yamamoto teaches wherein the second adhesive layer has a thickness of 5 µm to 30 µm ([0086] points to the non-metallic layers 4 (second adhesive layer) having a thickness of 20 µm or less. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee and Yamamoto, such that the second adhesive layer is of an adequate thickness in order to enhance the electromagnetic wave shielding effect.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in further view of Kim (PGPub No. 20200381498).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the display part includes: a transistor layer; a planarization layer over the transistor layer; and an emission element layer on the planarization layer (Fig. 3 points to a display apparatus 100 (display part) comprising a thin film transistor T (transistor layer), a planarization layer PAS1, and an emission element E.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Kim, such that the display part further includes a transistor layer, a planarization layer, and an emission element in order to create a pixel array region used for representing various video images.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches wherein the metal layer is made of a non- magnetic soft metal thin film having a rigidity of 100 to 350 Mpa ([0019] and [0052] point to the non-magnetic metal layer 2 comprising a metal such as aluminum (Al) and having a thickness of 4 to 100 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness of the non-magnetic metal layer 2 to be a result effective variable affecting its rigidity. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yamamoto to have the rigidity within the claimed range in order to create a laminate of sufficient flexibility, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer comprises a metal thin film of sufficient rigidity in order to create a flexible structure that can be molded to the corresponding display part.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches wherein the metal layer is made of an aluminum (Al) thin film ([0019] and [0052] point to the non-magnetic metal layer 2 comprising a metal such as aluminum (Al) and having a thickness of 4 to 100 µm.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer comprises an aluminum thin film in order to form a non-magnetic layer that, when combined with an amorphous magnetic metal, creates a high electromagnetic wave shielding effect.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 30 µm to 50 µm ([0019] points to the non-magnetic metal layer 2 having a thickness of 4 to 100 µm. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer comprises an adequate thickness in order to create a flexible metal structure that can be molded to the corresponding display part.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches wherein the reinforcement substrate is made of the amorphous metal thin film of an iron (Fe)-based alloy ([0057] points to the magnetic metal layer 3 comprising metals such as iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and alloys containing these listed elements (for example, iron alloys such as Fe-Ni).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer comprises metal thin film of an iron-based alloy in order to form an amorphous magnetic metal that, when combined with a non-magnetic layer, creates a high electromagnetic wave shielding effect.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches wherein the amorphous metal thin film includes iron (Fe) and at least one impurity of boron (B), silicon (Si), nickel (Ni), niobium (Nb), and copper (Cu) ([0057] points to the magnetic metal layer 3 comprising metals such as iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and alloys containing these listed elements (for example, iron alloys such as Fe-Ni).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer comprises metal thin film of an iron-based alloy in order to form an amorphous magnetic metal that, when combined with a non-magnetic layer, creates a high electromagnetic wave shielding effect.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches wherein 65% to 85% of the amorphous metal thin film contains iron (Fe) ([0057] points to the magnetic metal layer 3 comprising metals such as iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and alloys containing these listed elements (for example, iron alloys such as Fe-Ni). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the exact proportion of iron within the thin film to be a result effective variable affecting said thin film’s magnetic susceptibility. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yamamoto to have the percent of iron comprising the amorphous metal thin film within the claimed range in order to properly correspond with the metal layer to create an EMI shield, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the amorphous metal thin film contains a sufficient amount of iron in order to create an alloy of sufficient magnetic susceptibility required to form an adequate EMI shield.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches wherein the reinforcement substrate has a thickness of about 20 µm to about 40 µm ([0020] points to the magnetic metal layer 3 having a thickness of 4 to 100 µm. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the reinforcement substrate comprises an adequate thickness in order to create a flexible metal structure that can be molded to the corresponding display part.
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto teaches wherein the reinforcement substrate is made of the amorphous metal thin film having a tensile strength of 1 Gpa or more ([0057] points to the magnetic metal layer 3 comprising metals such as iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and alloys containing these listed elements (for example, iron alloys such as Fe-Ni).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the reinforcement substrate comprises an adequate level of tensile strength in order to create a durable structure that can resist deformation or breaking.
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto teaches wherein a reflection loss value of the metal layer is greater than that of the reinforcement substrate, and an absorption loss value of the reinforcement substrate is greater than that of the metal layer (Fig. 1D, [0052], and [0057] point to the non-magnetic metal layer 2 comprising a metal such as aluminum (Al) and the magnetic metal layer 3 (reinforcement substrate) comprising metals such as iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and alloys containing these listed elements (for example, iron alloys such as Fe-Ni). It is considered obvious that since Yamamoto already teaches the final structure of both the claimed invention’s metal layer and reinforcement substrate in terms of position and material composition, it also teaches the same properties and characteristics as disclosed in the claimed invention, namely the reflection loss values and the absorption loss values.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Yamamoto, such that the metal layer exhibits both a greater reflection loss value and a lesser absorption loss value than the reinforcement structure in order to further enhance the electromagnetic wave shielding effect.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in further view of Choi (PGPub No. 20090291608).
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches wherein the first adhesive layer has a thickness of 40 µm to 60 µm (Fig. 7a and [0099] point to a gasket comprising an adhesive polymer sheet 100 (first adhesive layer) which may have a thickness of about 25 µm to 3mm. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Choi is considered analogous to the claimed invention in light of [0051] and [0112], which point to 1) the adhesive polymer sheer comprising an alkyl acrylate monomer used to form an adhesive polymer resin, and 2) the use of the gasket as a shield against various electronic waves and electromagnetic waves which can be adapted to display units such as LCD devices.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee et al. and Choi, such that the first adhesive layer is of an adequate thickness in order to avoid both degradation and an interruption in photopolymerization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 (along with any dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §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 Lee et al. in further view of Pyun (PGPub No. 20110152394).
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 Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights