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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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) 1, 4-5, 10, 12-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0257582) in view of Jung (US 2016/0306452).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a display device comprising:
a display panel (DP, [64]);
a coating layer (BS, [102]) disposed beneath the display panel (DP, [64]); and
a protective layer (SCL, [104]) disposed beneath the coating layer (BS, [102]),
wherein the coating layer (BS, [102]) includes a first base layer (BL, [101]) containing an organic material ([101]) and having a viscosity equal to or greater than about 1000 cps, and a plurality of first fillers (UVCL, [102]) dispersed within the first base layer (BL, [101]),
wherein the protective layer (SCL, [104]) contains one of a metal, a metal oxide ([110]), and a conductive polymer, and includes a bottom surface of the protective layer (SCL, [104]) having a pencil hardness equal to or greater than H ([104]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the coating layer includes a first base layer having a viscosity equal to or greater than about 1000 cps.
Jung teaches, in at least figure 1 and related text, the device comprising the coating layer (114, [60]) includes a first base layer having a viscosity equal to or greater than about 1000 cps ([88]), for the purpose of providing an electronic board that comprises a polarizing plate including a polarizer and a high hardness plastic film integrated with each other, and thus, has excellent surface hardness, impact resistance, durability and wear resistance, and yet, is light-weighted and thin ([11]).
Kim and Jung are analogous art because they both are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim with the specified features of Jung because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Kim to have the coating layer including a first base layer having a viscosity equal to or greater than about 1000 cps, as taught by Jung, for the purpose of providing an electronic board that comprises a polarizing plate including a polarizer and a high hardness plastic film integrated with each other, and thus, has excellent surface hardness, impact resistance, durability and wear resistance, and yet, is light-weighted and thin ([11], Jung).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose an average diameter range of the plurality of first fillers is between equal to or greater than about 5 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 70 ㎛.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the average diameter of the plurality of first fillers as claimed in claim 4 in order to optimize the performance of the device in .. It is noted that the selection dimension of the average diameter of the plurality of first fillers as being no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143 I. C. It is noted that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, 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.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- an average diameter range of the plurality of first fillers is between equal to or greater than about 5 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 70 ㎛) or any unexpected results arising therefrom.
Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a thickness range of the coating layer (BS, [102]) is between equal to or greater than about 30 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 200 ㎛ ([103]),
wherein a thickness range of the protective layer (SCL, [104]) is between equal to or greater than about 10 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 20 ㎛ ([120]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, the protective layer (SCL, [104]) includes:
a second base layer (HC, [104]) disposed beneath the first base layer (BL, [101]); and
a plurality of second fillers (AF, inorganic particle, [104], [110]) dispersed in the second base layer (HC, [104]),
wherein each of the plurality of second fillers (inorganic particle, [110]) contains at least one of a metal, a metal oxide ([110]), and a conductive polymer.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, an average diameter of the plurality of second fillers (AF, inorganic particle, [104], [110]) is smaller than an average diameter of the plurality of first fillers (UVCL, [102]) (figure).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose an average diameter range of the plurality of second fillers is between equal to or greater than about 0.1 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 5 ㎛.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the average diameter of the plurality of second fillers as claimed in claim 13 in order to optimize the performance of the device in .. It is noted that the selection dimension of the average diameter of the plurality of second fillers as being no more than use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143 I. C. It is noted that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, 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.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- an average diameter range of the plurality of second fillers is between equal to or greater than about 0.1 ㎛ and equal to or smaller than about 5 ㎛) or any unexpected results arising therefrom.
Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, the second base layer (HC, [104]) is a photocurable resin ([104]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, the second base layer (HC, [104]) is a silicone-based resin, an acrylic-based resin ([104]), or an epoxy-based resin ([104]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a material contained in the first base layer (BL, [101]) and a material contained in the second base layer (HC, [104]) are different from each other.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a material contained in each of the plurality of first fillers (UVCL, [102]) and a material contained in each of the plurality of second fillers (AF, inorganic particle, [104], [110]) are different from each other.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0257582) in view of Jung (US 2016/0306452), and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0310971).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose a specific resistance of the protective layer is equal to or smaller than about 1Х10-4Ω cm.
Lee teaches, in paragraph [145], the device comprising a specific resistance of the protective layer (PL, [145]) is equal to or smaller than about 1Х10-4Ω cm ([145]), for the purpose of improving electrostatic discharge resistance property of the protection film ([145]).
Kim, Jung, and Lee are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim in view of Jung with the specified features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Kim in view of Jung to have the specific resistance of the protective layer being equal to or smaller than about 1Х10-4Ω cm, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of improving electrostatic discharge resistance property of the protection film ([145], Lee).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0257582) in view of Jung (US 2016/0306452), and further in view of Choi (US 2018/0013095).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 1 as described above.
Kim in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose a circuit board electrically connected to the display panel, wherein the protective layer is in contact with at least a portion of the circuit board.
Choi teaches, in at least figure 11 and related text, the device comprising a circuit board (30, [40]) electrically connected to the display panel (10, [40]), wherein the protective layer (60, [81]) is in contact with at least a portion of the circuit board (30, [40]), for the purpose of providing display device including a flexible substrate in which damage to wires thereon may be reduced or prevented ([6]).
Kim, Jung, and Choi are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim in view of Jung with the specified features of Choi because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Kim in view of Jung to have the circuit board electrically connected to the display panel, wherein the protective layer is in contact with at least a portion of the circuit board, as taught by Choi, for the purpose of providing display device including a flexible substrate in which damage to wires thereon may be reduced or prevented ([6], Choi).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0257582) in view of Jung (US 2016/0306452), and further in view of Ooishi (US 2021/0118589).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 10 as described above.
Kim in view of Jung does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers to a total mass of the second base layer is lower than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers to a total mass of the first base layer.
Ooishi teaches, in at least figures 8, 9, 18, and related text, the device comprising a ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers (16, [195]) to a total mass of the second base layer (33, [194]) is lower than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers (15, [195]) to a total mass of the first base layer (14, [194]), for the purpose of providing electroconductive film which is capable of inhibiting milkiness ([10]).
Kim, Jung, and Ooishi are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim in view of Jung with the specified features of Ooishi because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Kim in view of Jung to have the ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers to a total mass of the second base layer being lower than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers to a total mass of the first base layer, as taught by Ooishi, for the purpose of providing electroconductive film which is capable of inhibiting milkiness ([10], Ooishi).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0257582) in view of Ooishi (US 2021/0118589).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a display device comprising:
a display panel (DP, [64]); and
a lower member (BS/SCL, [102], [104]) disposed beneath the display panel (DP, [64]),
wherein the lower member (BS/SCL, [102], [104]) includes:
a coating layer (BS, [102]) disposed beneath the display panel (DP, [64]) and including a first base layer (BL, [101]) and a plurality of first fillers (UVCL, [102]) dispersed in the first base layer (BL, [101]); and
a protective layer (SCL, [104]) disposed beneath the coating layer (BS, [102]) and including a second base layer (HC, [104]) and a plurality of second fillers dispersed in the second base layer (HC, [104]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers to a total mass of the protective layer is smaller than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers to a total mass of the coating layer.
Ooishi teaches, in at least figures 8, 9, 18, and related text, the device comprising a ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers (16, [195]) to a total mass of the protective layer (32, [194]) is lower than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers (15, [195]) to a total mass of the coating layer (31, [195]), for the purpose of providing electroconductive film which is capable of inhibiting milkiness ([10]).
Kim, Jung, and Ooishi are analogous art because they all are directed to display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim in view of Jung with the specified features of Ooishi because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Kim in view of Jung to have the ratio of a mass of the plurality of second fillers to a total mass of the protective layer being smaller than a ratio of a mass of the plurality of first fillers to a total mass of the coating layer, as taught by Ooishi, for the purpose of providing electroconductive film which is capable of inhibiting milkiness ([10], Ooishi).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Ooishi discloses the display device of claim 19 as described above.
Kim further discloses, in at least figures 5-8 and related text, a bottom surface of the lower member (BS/SCL, [102], [104]) is defined as a bottom surface of the protective layer (SCL. [104]) (figures).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 2 that recite "the pencil hardness is greater than a pencil hardness of a bottom surface of the coating layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 2.
Claim 6 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 6 that recite "the coating layer is directly disposed beneath the display panel, wherein the protective layer is disposed directly beneath the coating layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 6.
Claims 8-9 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 8 that recite "an adhesive layer disposed beneath the first base layer; a protective film disposed beneath the adhesive layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 8.
Claim 16 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1, 10, and 16 that recite "each of the plurality of second fillers contains silver (Ag) or graphene" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1, 10, and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONG-HO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/TONG-HO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811