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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/21/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “at least one of nafion, flemion, and aciplex.” There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “at least one” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “at least one” comprises at least one nafion AND at least one flemion AND at least one aciplex. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “at least one” comprises at least one of the group of nafion AND flemion AND aciplex (i.e., the “at least one” comprises nafion OR flemion OR aciplex). Because both interpretations have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “at least one” comprises “at least one of the group of...”). However, correction is requested.
Claim 3 recites the “at least one of glass fibers, polypropylene, polyethylene, and polytetrafluoroethylene.” There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “at least one” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “at least one” comprises at least one glass fibers AND at least one polypropylene AND at least one polyethylene AND at least one polytetrafluoroethylene. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “at least one” comprises at least one of the group of glass fibers AND polypropylene AND polyethylene AND polytetrafluoroethylene (i.e., the “at least one” comprises glass fibers OR polypropylene OR polyethylene OR polytetrafluoroethylene). Because both interpretations have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “at least one” comprises “at least one of the group of...”). However, correction is requested.
Claim 17 recites the “at least one of a hard coating material, and an anti-fingerprint material.” There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “at least one” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “at least one” comprises at least one hard coating material AND at least one anti-fingerprint material. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “at least one” comprises at least one of the group of hard coating material AND anti-fingerprint material (i.e., the “at least one” comprises hard coating material OR anti-fingerprint material). Because both interpretations have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “at least one” comprises “at least one of the group of...”). However, correction is requested.
Claims 5 and 14-15 recite the term “about”. The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as "almost or nearly—used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (U.S. 2022/0181592 A1; “Jeong”).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a display device comprising:
A display panel (PNL, Fig. 2) ([0042]); and
A protection layer (140, Fig. 2) disposed on the display panel ([0049], [0051]),
Wherein the protection layer comprises:
A base layer (141, Fig. 2) having a porous structure ([0054]); and
A polymer resin impregnated into the base layer ([0087],[0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses the base layer (141, Fig. 2) includes a plurality of pores ([0051]), and the polymer resin is impregnated into at least a portion of the plurality of pores ([0087],[0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses a window (150, Fig. 2) on the display panel (PNL, Fig. 2) ([0084]), wherein the protection layer (140, Fig. 2) is disposed between the display panel (PNL, Fig. 2) and the window (150, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Jeong discloses a display device comprising:
A display panel comprising:
A first non-folding area (portion above “Folding area”, Fig. 7),
A second non-folding area, and
A folding area (“Folding area”, Fig. 7) disposed between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area (portion below “Folding area”, Fig. 7) ([0136]); and
A protection layer (140, Fig. 2) disposed on the display panel ([0049], [0051]),
Wherein the protection layer comprises:
A base layer (141, Fig. 2) comprising a polymer material ([0054]); and
A polymer resin ([0087],[0089]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (U.S. 2022/0181592 A1; “Jeong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. 2021/0016461 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong discloses the base layer (141, Fig. 2) of the protective layer comprises a polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate or polymethyl methyacrylate ([0052]) but does not disclose it comprises polyethylene or polypropylene. Kwon discloses a protective layer comprising polyethylene or polypropylene ([0077]). Because both Jeong and Kwon teach methods of using polymer protective layers within display devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of forming the base layer of the protective layer comprising polyethylene or polypropylene. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (U.S. 2022/0181592 A1; “Jeong”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses the protection layer (140, Fig. 2) has a thickness ([0053], [0069]) but does not disclose it must be within the range of about 10 μm to about 150 μm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a protection layer thickness of about 10 μm to about 150 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Jeong discloses a protection layer (140, Fig. 2) but does not disclose its light transmittance is in a range of about 90% or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a material of the protection layer such that its light transmittance range of 90% or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong discloses polymer resin within the protective layer ([0087], [0089]) but does not disclose a content of the polymer resin relative to the entire protective layer is in a range of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a content of the polymer resin relative to the entire protective layer to be in a range of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (U.S. 2022/0181592 A1; “Jeong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (U.S. 2020/0324375 A1; “Oh”).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong discloses a display panel (PNL, Fig. 2) but does not disclose there is an antireflection layer on top of the display panel. However, Oh discloses an antireflection layer on top of a display panel (RPL, Fig. 2) ([0088]). This has the advantage of reducing light reflections from the display panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Jeong with an antireflection layer on top of the display panel, as taught by Jeong, so as to reduce light reflections from the display panel. Incorporating the antireflection layer on top of the display panel into the device of Jeong would result in the antireflection layer disposed between the display panel (PNL, Fig. 2) and the protective layer (140, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong and Oh disclose a second adhesive layer (Jeong: Adh1, Fig. 2) between the antireflection layer (Oh: RPL, Fig. 2) and the protection layer (Jeong: 140, Fig. 2). Since the antireflection layer (Oh: RPF, Fig. 2) is disposed on top of the display panel (Jeong: PNL, Fig. 2), the second adhesive layer (Adh1, Fig. 2) would be directly disposed on the antireflection layer. Jeong further discloses the protection layer (140, Fig. 2) is directly disposed on the second adhesive layer (Adh1, Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claims 7-8 and 11-13 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.
Claims 2 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 1/7/2026