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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 3/31/265, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 21 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 LG Chem (KR-20210136565-A).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 21, LG Chem teaches an electronic device comprising a display device (e.g., display panel) including a window member (200), wherein the window member comprises a cover window including a hole area (201) (e.g., camera lens); and a protective film that includes a base layer (300) disposed on a surface of the cover window, wherein the protective film includes an adhesive layer (100) on a surface facing the cover window, and wherein the adhesive layer includes a cured portion (101), which overlaps the hole area and an uncured portion outside the hole area (102) that has adhesive force (e.g., pressure-sensitive adhesive film) attaching the protective film to the cover window, wherein the cured portion and the uncured portion are different regions of the same adhesive layer (100); wherein the adhesive layer is between the base layer and the cover window (entire document; fig 2c, 3)
Regarding the limitations “lacks adhesiveness” and “the cured portion is an area having an adhesive force of 0 gram-force (gf);” LG Chem suggests the adhesive layer includes a cured portion (101) which overlaps the hole area when installed on the display panel (entire document; fig 2c) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the cured portion should lack adhesiveness or have an adhesive force of 0 gram-force (gf).
Regarding claim 5, LG Chem teaches an area of the cured portion is equal to or greater than an area of the hole area (entire document; fig 3)
Regarding claim 6, LG Chem suggest the adhesive is N,N-dimethylacrylamide (i.e., an acrylic adhesive) (Examples 1 and 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LG Chem (KR-20210136565-A).
It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); 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). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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 at the time of invention to provide the window member of LG Chem with the dimensions (i.e., thicknesses of the adhesive layer and the base layer) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG Chem as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek (US 2020/0196457 A1).
LG Chem teaches the window member of claim 1.
LG Chem fails to suggest wherein the hole area includes an opening exposing the cover window and a light blocking layer surrounding the opening; wherein the light blocking layer is between the cover window and the adhesive layer; wherein the light blocking layer is in contact with the cured portion; and wherein a distance between the cover window and the protective film in the hole area is determined by a thickness of the light blocking layer.
Baek teaches a window member (WD) comprising a cover window (e.g., base substrate or BS) including a hole area (HA); and a protective film disposed on a surface of the cover window, wherein the protective film includes an adhesive layer (hole adhesive film or CPL) on a surface facing the cover window; and wherein the adhesive layer includes a cured portion (e.g., cured ink film), which overlaps the hole area; wherein the hole area includes an opening exposing the cover window and a light blocking layer surrounding the opening; wherein the light blocking layer (decoration layers or DL that reflects or absorbs light) is between the cover window and the adhesive layer; wherein the light blocking layer is in contact with the cured portion; wherein a distance between the cover window and the protective film in the hole area is determined by a thickness of the light blocking layer (para 57-62, 75-76; see fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the decoration layer of Baek with the window member of LG Chem to provide the window member with a unique decoration or to provide the window member with an area or layer that reflects or absorbs light as necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights