CTNF 18/506,635 CTNF 83781 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 and 11/07/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 . Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka et al. (US 20180178493 A1) Regarding claim 1, Fujioka discloses a display device (Figures 1-16 and corresponding text) comprising: a substrate (210); a display layer(220 display region) on a first surface of the substrate (210); and a protective member(100) on a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface (π55)and comprising a resin (π33), wherein the protective member( π33, π37) comprises removal marks (130 160)( Figure9) on side surfaces thereof t he removal marks are formed as a result of removing a frame surrounding the protective member this portion of the claim is attempting to claim removal marks by a method of removing a frame consequently, this portion of the claim is considered “product-by-process” claim. In spite of the fact that the product-by-process claim may recite only process limitations, it is the product and not the recited process that is covered by the claim. Further, patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on the difference in the method by which the product is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Furthermore, it is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation. Consequently, absent a showing of an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, the subject product-by-process claim limitation is not afforded patentable weight (see MPEP 2113). Regarding claim 18, Fujioka disclose wherein a thickness of the protective member is in a range of 100 to 300 micrometers (μm) (π32). Regarding claims 19-22 , Fujioka fails explicitly disclose wherein the resin comprises at least one of a binder, first fillers, second fillers, light blocking materials, or foaming agent (claim 19);, wherein the first fillers comprise at least one of a carbon-based material or a ceramic-based material, and the second fillers comprise at least one of a carbon-based material or a metal-based material (claim 20); wherein the light blocking materials comprise at least one of carbon black, black pigment, or black dye(claim 21); wherein the binder comprises at least one of acrylic resin, urethane resin, silicone resin, or rubber resin (claim 22). It would have been obvious to before the effective filing date to modify the display device to include wherein the resin comprises at least one of a binder, first fillers, second fillers, light blocking materials, or foaming agent ;, wherein the first fillers comprise at least one of a carbon-based material or a ceramic-based material, and the second fillers comprise at least one of a carbon-based material or a metal-based material; wherein the light blocking materials comprise at least one of carbon black, black pigment, or black dye; wherein the binder comprises at least one of acrylic resin, urethane resin, silicone resin, or rubber resin to provide for a durable foldable flexible device and, since 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).. Regarding claim 23 , Fujioka discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an elongation rate of the frame is 200% or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the display device of Fujioka wherein an elongation rate of the frame is 200% or more the motivation being realizing a wide viewing angle and highly precise display, and also of being allowed to be located on a flexible substrate, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the 7892 provided with this office actin. And below: US 20250268090 A1- thin, lightweight, high-contrast, and low-power-consumption display device US 12055809 B2- Display assembly using structural adhesive Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm. 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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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. TRACIE Y. GREEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2875 /TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/506,635 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/506,635 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/506,635 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/506,635 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875
Prosecution Insights