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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US publication 2024/0310648 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hirai648, in view of Hinata et al. (US publication 2020/0096812 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hinata812.
Regarding claim 1, Hirai648 teaches a display device (fig. 4 and related text) comprising: a display panel (11/12/13, [0029-0031]) including a surface disposed at a front thereof (fig. 4); and a front stacked structure (23b, fig. 4) disposed on the surface of the display panel (fig. 4), the front stacked structure including a cover window (24, [0051], fig. 4); and a first composite member (25b, fig. 4) disposed on the cover window (fig. 4), the first composite member including: a base layer (251, [0050-0054]); and a resin layer (252, [0050-0054]) disposed on the base layer (fig. 4), wherein the first composite member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 20 parts per million per degrees Celsius to about 45 parts per million per degrees Celsius ([0054].
Hirai648 does not explicitly teach wherein the first composite member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 20 parts per million per degrees Celsius to about 45 parts per million per degrees Celsius in a temperature range of about-40 degrees Celsius to about 60 degrees Celsius.
Hinata812 teaches wherein the first composite member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 20 parts per million per degrees Celsius to about 45 parts per million per degrees Celsius in a temperature range of about-40 degrees Celsius to about 60 degrees Celsius ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hirai648 with that of Hinata812 so that wherein the first composite member has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 20 parts per million per degrees Celsius to about 45 parts per million per degrees Celsius in a temperature range of about-40 degrees Celsius to about 60 degrees Celsius for strong durability despite in various environments in which a display device is used.
Regarding claim 2, Hirai648 and Hinata812 disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Hirai648 and Hinata812 do not explicitly teach wherein the base layer has a thickness of about 65 micrometers to about 75 micrometers.
However, it is well-known in the art that a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer depends on a process technology, overall size of the device, and is a result-effective variable as electrical properties (conductivity, current, resistance, doping, insulation, withstanding breakdown, etc.) depend on the width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer. So, a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer is a parameter that one must consider and decide upon and is something that can be optimized through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, it has been held 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. (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hirai648 and Hinata812 so that wherein the base layer has a thickness of about 65 micrometers to about 75 micrometers for the purpose of optimizing device performance and overall size of the device.
Regarding claim 3, Hirai648 teaches wherein the resin layer includes any one of a silicone-based resin, an acrylate-based resin, and a urethane-based resin ([0050-0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Hirai648 and Hinata812 disclose all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Hirai648 and Hinata812 do not explicitly teach wherein the resin layer has a thickness of about 20 micrometers to about 35 micrometers.
However, it is well-known in the art that a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer depends on a process technology, overall size of the device, and is a result-effective variable as electrical properties (conductivity, current, resistance, doping, insulation, withstanding breakdown, etc.) depend on the width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer. So, a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer is a parameter that one must consider and decide upon and is something that can be optimized through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, it has been held 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. (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hirai648 and Hinata812 so that wherein the resin layer has a thickness of about 20 micrometers to about 35 micrometers for the purpose of optimizing device performance and overall size of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Hirai648 teaches wherein the resin layer is disposed between the cover window and the base layer and couples the cover window and the base layer to each other (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Hirai648wherein the front stacked structure further includes: an impact absorbing layer (22, [0033]) disposed between the display panel and the cover window; a first coupling member (21) disposed between the cover window and the impact absorbing layer; and a second coupling member (30) disposed between the impact absorbing layer and the display panel (fig. 4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai648 in view of Hinata812, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US publication 2021/0366999 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sung999.
Regarding claim 4, Hirai648 and Hinata812 disclose all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Hirai648 and Hinata812 do not explicitly disclose wherein the silicone-based resin includes a siloxane-based resin.
Sung999 discloses wherein the silicone-based resin includes a siloxane-based resin ([0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hirai648 and Hinata812 with that of Sung999 so that wherein the silicone-based resin includes a siloxane-based resin because (a) it is a known alternative and would have been familiar to a person of ordinary skill in the art to yield predictable results, and (b) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims contain limitations that none of the prior art of record discloses, teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combinations when taken in combination with all other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 is allowable primarily because the prior arts of record, singly or in combination, neither anticipates nor render obvious the following limitations when taken in combination with all other limitations:
“…and a second composite member disposed between the cover window and the display panel, each of the first composite member and the second composite member includes a base layer and a resin layer disposed on the base layer, and each of the first composite member and the second composite member has a storage modulus of about 2.7 gigapascals to about 2.9 gigapascals at about 25 degrees Celsius”.
Hirai648 and Hinata812 disclose some features of the claimed invention as explained above for claim 1.
However, Hirai648 and Hinata812 or the prior arts of record, singly or in combination, neither anticipates nor render obvious the above quoted limitations when taken in combinations with all other limitations.
Therefore, the independent claim 12 is allowed. The depended claims 12-20 are allowed for their dependency to claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. 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.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights