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) submitted on 12/19/2023 and 07/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the symbols of µm in pars. 125-127 is incorrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 24-26 is 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 24 recites the limitation "wherein the second photoinitiator of the first portion has a concentration smaller than a concentration of the second photoinitiator of the second portion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For that reasons, claims 25-26 found unclear.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2021/0027667), and further in view of Du (US 2020/0413551)
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a display device in fig. 5B comprising:
a display module (refer to DP in fig. 5B);
a window (refer to WP1 in fig. 5B) disposed on the display module (refer to DP in fig. 5B); and
an adhesive member (refer to PSA1/PSA2/PS3 in fig. 5B) disposed between the display module and the window (refer to DP and WP1), the adhesive member (refer to PSA1/PSA2/PSA3) comprising:
a first adhesive layer (refer to PSA2) disposed adjacent to the display module (refer to DP) and having a first storage modulus at a temperature of about 25℃ (see par. 80); and
a second adhesive layer (refer to PSA1 or PSA3) disposed between the first adhesive layer (refer to PSA2) and the window (refer to WP) and comprising a first portion adjacent to the first adhesive layer and having a second storage modulus greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ and a second portion disposed adjacent to the window and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃.
Lee does not mention the second adhesive layer comprising a first portion adjacent to the first adhesive layer and having a second storage modulus greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ and a second portion disposed adjacent to the window and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃.
Du teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a multi layered adhesive layer (refer to 4 in fig. 12) comprising: a first adhesive layer (refer to 41); and a second adhesive layer (refer to 42) comprising: a first portion (refer to H portion of sub layer 42) adjacent to the first adhesive layer (refer to sub layer 41) and having a second storage modulus (see par. 75) greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ (refer to sub layer 41. NOTE: in par. 75, Du mentions the non-bendable portion or outside L region portion of the sub layer 41 is smaller than the H portion of sub layer 42) and a second portion (refer to non-bendable portion of sub layer 42) disposed adjacent to the window and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ (see pars. 73-75).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the second adhesive layer comprising a first portion adjacent to the first adhesive layer and having a second storage modulus greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ and a second portion disposed adjacent to the window and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ as taught by Du in the teaching of Lee because it is easier for the material with the high storage modulus to restore to an original state after a force that bends or stretches the material is eliminated (see par. 69).
Regarding claim 14, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the second adhesive layer (42) has a storage modulus that increases from the second portion to the first portion (see pars. 73-75. NOTE: the bendable portion has a higher storage modulus than the non-bendable portion).
Regarding claim 15, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the first storage modulus has a value selected from a range of about 0.03MPa to about 0.05MPa at the temperature of about 25℃ (refer to par. 74-75. NOTE: the storage modulus of the non-bendable adhesive layer is from 20KPa-50KPa which is from 0.02 MPa to 0.05 MPa at the temperature of 25℃).
Regarding claim 16, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the second storage modulus has a value selected from a range of about 0.1MPa to about 0.4MPa at the temperature of about 25℃, and wherein the third storage modulus has a value selected from range of about 0.03MPa to about 0.05MPa at the temperature of about 25℃ (refer to par. 74-75. NOTE: the storage modulus of the non-bendable adhesive layer is from 20KPa-50KPa which is from 0.02 MPa to 0.05 MPa at the temperature of 25℃)
Regarding claim 17, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the adhesive member has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 15 micrometers to about 100 micrometers (see par. 104).
However, there is no evidence indicating “the adhesive member has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 150 micrometers to about 200 micrometers” are critical and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to slightly increase the thickness of the adhesive member from a range of about 150 micrometers to about 200 micrometers in the teaching of Lee and Du in order to provide a sufficiently adhere between the display panel and the window layer.
Regarding claim 18, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the first adhesive layer (refer to 41) has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 5 micrometers to about 10 micrometers (107).
However, there is no evidence indicating “the first adhesive layer has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 25 micrometers to about 60 micrometers” are critical and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to slightly increase the thickness of the first adhesive layer from a range of about 25 micrometers to about 60 micrometers in the teaching of Lee and Du in order to provide a sufficiently adhere between the display panel and the window layer.
Regarding claim 19, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the second adhesive layer has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 5 micrometers to about 15 micrometers (par. 106).
However, there is no evidence indicating “the second adhesive layer has a thickness having a value selected from a range of about 75 micrometers to about 150 micrometers” are critical and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to slightly increase the thickness of the second adhesive layer from a range of about 75 micrometers to about 150 micrometers in the teaching of Lee and Du in order to provide a sufficiently adhere between the display panel and the window layer.
Regarding claim 20, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the second adhesive layer (42) is a single layer (see fig. 12).
Regarding claim 21, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Lee teaches the display module comprises a display panel and an input sensing unit disposed on the display panel, the adhesive member is disposed directly on the input sensing unit, and the window is disposed directly on the adhesive member (see par. 75 and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Lee and Du teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Du teaches the second adhesive layer (42) is disposed directly on the first adhesive layer (41) (see fig. 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Reference 1: Du (US 2020/0413551)
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches an adhesive member (refer to 4 in fig. 12) comprising:
a first adhesive layer (refer to the lowest adhesive layer 41 in fig. 12) extending in a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction different from the first horizontal direction and having a first storage modulus at a temperature of about 25℃ (see pars. 73-75); and
Du fails to teach a second adhesive layer extending in the first and second horizontal directions and disposed directly on the first adhesive layer and comprising a first portion adjacent to the first adhesive layer and having a second storage modulus greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25 ℃ and a second portion spaced apart from the first portion in a vertical direction perpendicular to the first and second horizontal directions and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃.
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of an adhesive member comprising: “a second adhesive layer extending in the first and second horizontal directions and disposed directly on the first adhesive layer and comprising a first portion adjacent to the first adhesive layer and having a second storage modulus greater than the first storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃ and a second portion spaced apart from the first portion in a vertical direction perpendicular to the first and second horizontal directions and having a third storage modulus smaller than the second storage modulus at the temperature of about 25℃” in combination of all of the limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-12 include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 23 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the second adhesive layer comprises: a first photoinitiator absorbing a light having a center wavelength selected from a range of about 220 nanometers to about 320 nanometers; and a second photoinitiator absorbing a light having a center wavelength selected from a range of about 340 nanometers to about 440 nanometers” in combination of all of the limitations of claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. 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.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights