DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0033494).
Kim is directed to a protective film for the display of an electronic device (paragraph 0002-0003). The protective film comprises a base layer, a hard coating layer, and an anti-fingerprint layer (Figure 2 and paragraph 0046). The anti-fingerprint coating comprising silanes with perfluoro chains covalently bound to the surface and covalently linked to each other by means of an adhesion promoter (Figures 6 and 7 and paragraphs 0090-0100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brandenburg et al. (US 2021/0380474) as evidenced by Brown et al. (US 2018/0118957).
Brandenburg is directed to a flexible cover substrate with a polymeric coating for use with the display of an electronic device (paragraphs 0003-0004). The display and flexible substrate comprises two non-folding regions on either side of a folding region (Figure 5 and paragraph 0094). The coating may be an easy-to-clean coating, such as a one formed from a perfluoro polyether alkoxy silane (paragraph 0118), i.e., a silane having a perfluoroalkoxy alkane chain. The coating may further comprise a hard coating layer (paragraph 0110).
While Brandenburg does not explicitly recite that the fluoroalkyl or perfluoro polyether alkoxy silanes include a crosslinking portion, Brown shows that fluorosilanes applied to a surface self-assemble into a coating layer in which the alkoxy groups of the silanes covalently bind the silanes to the substrate as well as to other silanes in the coating (see Figure 6 in Brown). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hydrolysable groups of the silanes of Brandenburg to link together to form a structure corresponding to a crosslinking portion bonding the carbon atoms of one fluoroalkyl silane or perfluoro polyether chain to another.
Regarding claims 4-6, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect refractive index, reflectance at a wavelength of about 550 nm, and initial water contact angle to be material properties. Since the material for the easy-to-clean coating of Brandenburg reads on the material used in the instant invention - i.e., a crosslinked polymer including first and second perfluoro polyether alkoxy chains with a crosslinking portion bonding them together - one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to inherently satisfy the limitations of these claims.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adachi et al. (US 2007/0053063) as evidenced by Brown et al. (US 2018/0118957).
Adachi is directed to a liquid crystal display panel provided with an antireflection layer (paragraph 0002). The antireflection layer comprises materials chosen for their low refractive index (paragraph 0227). The antireflection layer is provided with a layer of fluorine compound having liquid repellency having a reflectance of less than 1% at a wavelength of 555 nm (paragraph 0242) and a water contact angle of 100 to 180o (claim 15). The layer of fluorine compound is formed from a perfluoropolyether or perfluoroalkyl compound having an alkoxy silane group (paragraph 0248).
While Adachi does not explicitly recite that the fluoroalkyl or perfluoro polyether alkoxy silanes include a crosslinking portion, Brown shows that fluorosilanes applied to a surface self-assemble into a coating layer in which the alkoxy groups of the silanes covalently bind the silanes to the substrate as well as to other silanes in the coating (see Figure 6 in Brown). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hydrolysable groups of the silanes of Adachi to link together to form a structure corresponding to a crosslinking portion bonding the carbon atoms of one fluoroalkyl silane or perfluoro polyether chain to another.
Regarding claim 2, a perfluoroalkyl group corresponds to polytetrafluoroethylene.
Regarding claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect refractive index to be a material property. Since the fluorine compound used by Adachi reads on the material used in the instant invention - i.e., a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer including first and second polymer chains with a crosslinking portion bonding them together - and exhibits the same reflectance at about 550 nm, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to inherently satisfy the limitations of this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0033494) in view of Brandenburg et al. (US 2021/0380474).
Kim teaches all the limitations of claims 2-8, except for specifying the nature of the perfluoro chains of the silanes used in the anti-fingerprint layer. However, Kim does teach that the anti-fingerprint property is the same as a property allowing the film to be easily cleaned (paragraph 0041).
Brandenburg is directed to a flexible cover substrate with a polymeric coating for use with the display of an electronic device (paragraphs 0003-0004). The coating may be an easy-to-clean coating, such as a one formed from a perfluoro polyether alkoxy silane (paragraph 0118), i.e., a silane having a perfluoroalkoxy alkane chain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a perfluoro polyether alkoxy silane as the silane with a perfluoro chain of Kim since the courts have held that the selection of a known material (in this case, a perfluoro polyether alkoxy silane) based on its suitability for its intended use (forming an easy-to-clean surface) supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the anti-fingerprint layer may have a thickness of about 80 to 200 nm (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect refractive index and reflectance at a wavelength of about 550 nm to be material properties. Since the material for the easy-to-clean coating of Brandenburg reads on the material used in the instant invention - i.e., a crosslinked polymer including first and second perfluoro polyether alkoxy chains with a crosslinking portion bonding them together - one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to inherently satisfy the limitations of these claims.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches that the anti-fingerprint layer has a water contact angle of 110o or more (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, the hard coating layer reads on the base layer for this claim.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2007/0053063) as evidenced by Brown et al. (US 2018/0118957).
Adachi teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 9-13, as outlined above, except for the use of a combination of both silanes with perfluoropolyether groups and silanes with perfluoroalkyl groups.
However, one skilled in the art would be motivated to use a combination of the silanes taught by Adachi because the courts have held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 10, in the absence of a showing or criticality or unexpected results, it would have required no more than routine experimentation and ordinary skill to determine a suitable ratio at which to employ the perfluoropolyether group containing silanes and the perfluoroalkyl group containing silanes.
Regarding claim 11, Adachi teaches that the fluorine compound is applied at a thickness of less than 6 nm (paragraph 0242), a range that overlaps the range recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect refractive index to be a material property. Since the fluorine compound used by Adachi reads on the material used in the instant invention - i.e., a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer including first and second polymer chains with a crosslinking portion bonding them together - and exhibits the same reflectance at about 550 nm, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to inherently satisfy the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 13, the antireflection layer reads on a low refractive index layer since it is formed from a material having a low index of refraction (paragraph 0227).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions of instant claims 1-8 represent a genus of which the inventions described by claims 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887 are species since the window of the instant claim is not required to have a hard coating layer and the polymer chains of the fluorine-based crosslinked polymer are not required to be perfluoropolyethers. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The anti-fingerprint coating layer and anti-fingerprint coating compound corresponding to the protection layer and fluorine-based crosslinked polymer of the instant claims, respectively. Two of the perfluoropolyether chains corresponding to the first and second polymer chains of the instant claims and the linker of anti-fingerprint coating compound corresponding to the crosslinking portion bonding carbon atoms of the first and second polymer chains together.
Regarding claims 4-6, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect refractive index, reflectance at a wavelength of about 550 nm, and initial water contact angle to be material properties. Since the material for the anti-fingerprint coating layer of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887 reads on the material used in the instant invention - i.e., a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer including first and second polymer chains with a crosslinking portion bonding them together - one of ordinary skill in the art would expect it to inherently satisfy the limitations of these claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887 in view of Brandenburg et al. (US 2021/0380474).
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887 is directed to an electronic apparatus including a display protective layer comprising a substrate and an anti-fingerprint coating layer. The electronic apparatus corresponds to the display device with a window; the substrate corresponds to the base layer; the anti-fingerprint coating layer corresponds to the protection layer. The anti-fingerprint coating layer is formed from an anti-fingerprint coating compound containing two or three perfluoropolyether moieties attached via a trivalent or tetravalent linking group to an end portion. Two of the perfluoropolyether moieties correspond to the first and second polymer chains while the linking group corresponds to the crosslinking portion.
However, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887 does not require that the display module have folding and non-folding regions.
Brandenburg is directed to a flexible cover substrate with a polymeric coating, such as an easy-to-clean coating formed from a fluoroalkyl silane or perfluoro polyether alkoxy silane (paragraph 0118), for use with the display of an electronic device (paragraphs 0003-0004). The display and flexible substrate comprises two non-folding regions on either side of a folding region (Figure 5 and paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to employ a flexible electronic apparatus as the claimed electronic apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,887, such as with two non-folding regions on either side of a folding region, since flexible electronics have become popular with consumers (paragraph 0005)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that limitation in the claims that the fluorine-based crosslinked polymer including a first polymer chain, a second polymer chain, and a crosslinking portion that bonds carbon atoms of the first polymer chain to carbon atoms of the second polymer chain describes a different structure than the protective film of Kim, Brandenburg, and Adachi. The applicant notes that the protective film of Kim, the polymeric coating of Brandenburg, and the antireflection film of Adachi are all based on silanes such that the crosslinking portion connects silicon atoms of silanes together. This is contrasted with the applicant's invention as depicted in Figure 8
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that the claims as written do not require features illustrated in the specification, such as the bonding of carbon atoms of one chain directly to carbon atoms of another chain, that are relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art. It is improper to impart claim limitations from the specification and the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning absent a definition to the contrary presented in the specification (see MPEP 2111.01). The claim requires the protection layer to include a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer having three components: (a) a first polymer chain, (b) a second polymer chain, and (c) a crosslinking portion that carbon bonds atoms of the first polymer chain to carbon atoms of the second polymer chain. There is nothing in the claims requiring carbon atoms of the first chain to be directly bonded to carbon atoms of the second chain, nor is there anything that precludes the presence of atoms other than carbon in the first polymer chain, the second polymer chains, or the crosslinking portion.
Regarding the rejections set forth under Kim, while Figure 8 of the application may show a structure that is different from that of Kim, Each of these components are present in Kim as can be seen in Figure 7, an annotated version of which is shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The "perfluoro chains," designated (a) and (b) above, represent first and second polymer chains while the "adhesion promoter," designated (c) above, represents a crosslinking portion that covalently the bonds together the carbon atoms of the first chain with the carbon atoms of the second chain. While the examiner agrees that there would be silicon atoms intervening between the carbon atoms of the first chain and the carbon atoms of the second chain, there is nothing in the claims that precludes the presence of atoms other than carbon in the first and/or second polymer chains. The examiner further disagrees with the applicant's contention that the protective film of Kim does not contain a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer since Kim explicitly describes their coating layer as polymers containing perfluoro chains that are bonded together by the adhesion promoter (e.g., paragraph 0127).
Regarding Brandenburg, the applicant argues that the reference does not teach or suggest any carbon based crosslinking between fluorinated chains, and thus does not disclose a fluorine-based crosslinked polymer including a first polymer chain, a second polymer chain, and a crosslinking portion that bonds carbon atoms of the first polymer chain to carbon atoms of the second polymer chain. Rather, the applicant argues that Brandenburg employs fluorosilanes deposited as a surface layer with the only linking occurring at the silane headgroup via Si-O-Si condensation rather than forming carbon-carbon bonds between fluorinated chains.
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that there is nothing in the claim requiring the formation of carbon-carbon bonds between the first and second polymer chains nor is there anything precludes the presence of atoms other than carbon in the first polymer chain, the second polymer chain, or the crosslinking portion. Rather, the fluorosilanes of Brandenburg have polymer chains (e.g., (per)fluoroalkyl or (per)fluoroalkyl alkoxy groups) and the fluorosilanes would be expected to inherently be bound together as illustrated by Brown resulting in the carbon atoms of one fluorosilane being covalently connected to the carbon atoms of another fluorosilane.
Regarding Adachi, the applicant argues that the reference teaches a thin surface coating of fluorosilanes or fluoropolymer molecules and not a polymer network. Thus, it is argued that Adachi does not teach or suggest a first polymer chain, a second polymer chain, or a crosslinking portion between polymer chains as required by the claims. The applicant alleges that the teaching of a thickness of less than 6 nm for the liquid repellent layer indicates that the layer is a molecular coating and not a crosslinked polymer layer. The applicant further argues that silane headgroup condensation through Si-O-Si bonds does not create any carbon-carbon bonding between fluorinated chains.
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that there is nothing in the claim requiring the formation of carbon-carbon bonds between the first and second polymer chains nor is there anything precludes the presence of atoms other than carbon in the first polymer chain, the second polymer chain, or the crosslinking portion. Rather, the fluorosilanes of Adachi have polymer chains containing carbon atoms (e.g., paragraph 0248) and the fluorosilanes would be expected to inherently be bound together as illustrated by Brown resulting in structure wherein the carbon atoms of one fluorosilane are covalently bonded to the carbon atoms of another fluorosilane. It is further noted that claim 3, which further limits the thickness of the protective layer was not rejected over Adachi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jewhurst et al. (US 2014/0272290) is directed to an optical coating made from polymers (paragraph 0001). The coating is formed by sputtering one or more polymers onto a substrate (paragraph 0010) resulting in a coating wherein reactive polymer fragments covalently bond with themselves and the substrate surface (paragraph 0013). The polymer may be polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraph 0015).
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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787