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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the second side the buffer layer” in the last two lines of the claim. It appears the claim should recite “the second side of the buffer layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the second side the buffer layer” in the last two lines of the claim. It appears the claim should recite “the second side of the buffer layer.” 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.
Claims 8 and 14 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 8 recites “a third adhesive layer thickness that is based on the buffer layer thickness.” That recitation is not clear as it is not clear what the phrase “based on” is meant to specifically refer to.
Claim 14 recites “a third adhesive layer thickness that is based on the buffer layer thickness.” That recitation is not clear as it is not clear what the phrase “based on” is meant to specifically refer to.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0088392 A1) (“Park”), in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0134007 A1) (“Lee”) and Park et al. (US 2019/0143638 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses a screen cover configured to cover a flexible display (abstr., 0006, 0007), the screen cover comprising a buffer layer – element 13 – comprising a first side – implied - configured to be positioned away from the flexible display and a second side configured to be positioned close to the flexible display (0056, Figs. 3 and 7), a first film layer – element 11 - covering the first side of the buffer layer and a first adhesive layer – element 14 – bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer (0048, 0060, Figs. 3 and 7). Park is silent with respect to the second film layer and a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer.
Lee discloses a screen cover for a flexible display device (abstr.), the screen cover including a film layer – element 120 attached to a side of a buffer layer – element 130 (0011, 0046, Fig. 1), the configuration of the buffer layer between two film layers providing for improved impact resistance of the cover (0009, 0011, 0044, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the screen cover of Park with a second film layer as disclosed in Lee for improved impact resistance. Lee is silent with respect to the second adhesive layer as recited in the claim, however, since Park discloses an adhesive layer bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer of Park.
Regarding a first modulus of the first film layer being greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer being greater than the third modulus, Park discloses a modulus of the buffer layer of 7-30 MPa (abstr., 0008), while Lee discloses modulus of the film layer of no less than 1.5 GPa (0016).
Park 2 discloses a screen cover for a flexible display (abstr., 0005, 0006), wherein a film layer – the first base member - has a modulus greater than the buffer layer (0007, 0017-0019, 0101), the cover having improved impact resistance to an external impact (0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the screen cover of Park and Lee wherein a first modulus of the first film layer is greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer is greater than the third modulus, as such configuration is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays as it improves impact resistance to an external impact.
Regarding claim 2, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the cover of claim 1. Lee discloses the thickness of the second film layer of 30 µm (p. 5, Table 5). The thickness is within the range recited in claim 2.
As to claim 3, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the cover of claim 1. Lee discloses the thickness of the second film layer of 30 µm (p. 5, Table 5). The thickness is within the range recited in claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the cover of claim 1. Lee discloses modulus of the film layer of equal or greater than 1 GPa (0016), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second modulus of the second film layer in the cover according to the references as disclosed in Lee, as such modulus of films is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays.
Regarding claim 5, Park, Lee and Park 2, teach the cover of claim 1. Lee discloses the second film layer comprises colorless polyimide or polyester (0047).
As to claim 6, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the cover of claim 1. Park and Lee disclose the first and second film layers made of the same material (Park, 0048, 0049; Lee, 0047).
Claim(s) 7, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0088392 A1) (“Park”), in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0134007 A1) (“Lee”) and Park et al. (US 2019/0143638 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses a foldable display apparatus (abstr., 0007, 0027), comprising a flexible display comprising a flexible display surface (0027), and a screen cover covering a flexible display surface (abstr., 0006, 0007), the screen cover comprising a buffer layer – element 13 – comprising a first side – implied - away from the flexible display and a second side close to the flexible display (0056, Figs. 3 and 7), a first film layer – element 11 - covering the first side of the buffer layer and a first adhesive layer – element 14 – bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer (0048, 0060, Figs. 3 and 7). Park is silent with respect to the second film layer and a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer.
Lee discloses a screen cover for a flexible display device (abstr.), the screen cover including a film layer – element 120 attached to a second side of a buffer layer – element 130 (0011, 0046, Fig. 1), the configuration of the buffer layer between two film layers providing for improved impact resistance of the cover (0009, 0011, 0044, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the screen cover of Park with a second film layer as disclosed in Lee for improved impact resistance. Lee is silent with respect to the second adhesive layer as recited in the claim, however, since Park discloses an adhesive layer bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer of Park.
Regarding a first modulus of the first film layer being greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer being greater than the third modulus, Park discloses a modulus of the buffer layer of 7-30 MPa (abstr., 0008), while Lee discloses modulus of a film layer of no less than 1.5 GPa (0016).
Park 2 discloses a screen cover for a flexible display (abstr., 0005, 0006), wherein a film layer – the first base member - has a modulus greater than the buffer layer (0007, 0017-0019, 0101), the cover having improved impact resistance to an external impact (0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the screen cover of Park and Lee wherein a first modulus of the first film layer is greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer is greater than the third modulus, as such configuration is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays as it improves impact resistance to an external impact.
Regarding claim 19, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the apparatus of claim 7. Lee discloses the second film layer comprises a thickness of 30 µm (p. 5, Table 5). The thickness is within the range recited in claim 19.
As to claim 20, Park, Lee and Park 2 teach the apparatus of claim 7. Lee discloses the second film layer comprises a thickness of 30 µm (0050). The thickness is within the range recited in claim 20.
Claim(s) 8, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0088392 A1) (“Park”), in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0143638 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 8, Park discloses a foldable display apparatus (abstr., 0007, 0027), comprising a flexible display comprising a flexible display surface (0027), and a screen cover covering the flexible display surface (abstr., 0006, 0007), the screen cover comprising a buffer layer – element 13 – having a buffer layer thickness – implied – comprising a first side – implied - away from the flexible display (0056, Figs. 3 and 7), a first film layer – element 11 – covering the first side of the buffer layer and a first adhesive layer – element 14 – bonding the first film layer to the buffer layer (0048, 0060, Figs. 3 and 7).
Park discloses a third adhesive layer – element 17 - directly bonding the buffer layer to the flexible display surface as recited in the claim (0096-0099). Regarding the third adhesive layer thickness being not less than half of the buffer layer thickness, Park discloses the third adhesive layer thickness of from 5 to 200 µm (0101), and the buffer layer thickness of from 100 to 300 µm (0058), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the thickness ratio between the third adhesive layer and the buffer layer of Park based on the disclosed thickness ranges.
Regarding a first modulus of the first film layer being greater than a second modulus of the buffer layer, Park discloses a modulus of the buffer layer of 7-30 MPa (abstr., 0008).
Park 2 discloses a screen cover for a flexible display (abstr., 0005, 0006), wherein a film layer – the first base member - has a modulus greater than the buffer layer (0007, 0017-0019, 0101), the cover having improved impact resistance to an external impact (0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the screen cover of Park wherein a first modulus of the first film layer is greater than a second modulus of the buffer layer as such configuration is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays as it improves impact resistance to an external impact.
With respect to claim 10, Park and Park 2 teach the display of claim 8. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 10. Park discloses a thickness of the third adhesive layer of 5 µm to 200 µm (0101), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 11, Park and Park 2 teach the display of claim 8. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 11. Park discloses a thickness of the third adhesive layer of 5 µm to 200 µm (0101), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 12, Park and Park 2 teach the display of claim 8. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 12; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Park discloses a thickness of the third adhesive layer of 5 µm to 200 µm (0101), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Park and Park 2 teach the display of claim 8. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 13; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Park discloses a thickness of the third adhesive layer of 5 µm to 200 µm (0101), which overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0088392 A1) (“Park”), in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0143638 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 14, Park discloses an electronic device (abstr., 0007, 0027), comprising a flexible display comprising a flexible display surface (0027), and a screen cover covering the flexible display surface (abstr., 0006, 0007), the screen cover comprising a buffer layer – element 13 – having a buffer layer thickness – implied – comprising a first side – implied - away from the flexible display (0056, Figs. 3 and 7), a first film layer – element 11- covering the first side of the buffer layer, and a first adhesive layer – element 14 – bonding the first film layer to the buffer layer (0048, 0060, Figs. 3 and 7).
Park discloses a third adhesive layer – element 17 - directly bonding the buffer layer to the flexible display surface as recited in the claim (0096-0099). Regarding the third adhesive layer thickness being not less than half of the buffer layer thickness, Park discloses the third adhesive layer thickness of from 5 to 200 µm (0101), and the buffer layer thickness of from 100 to 300 µm (0058), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the thickness ratio between the third adhesive layer and the buffer layer of Park based on the disclosed thickness ranges.
Regarding a first modulus of the first film layer being greater than a second modulus of the buffer layer, Park discloses a modulus of the buffer layer of 7-30 MPa (abstr., 0008).
Park 2 discloses a screen cover for a flexible display (abstr., 0005, 0006), wherein a film layer – the first base member - has a modulus greater than the buffer layer (0007, 0017-0019, 0101), the cover having improved impact resistance to an external impact (0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the screen cover of Park wherein a first modulus of the first film layer is greater than a second modulus of the buffer layer as such configuration is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays as it improves impact resistance to an external impact.
As to claim 15, Park and Park 2 teach the device of claim 14. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to 300 µm (0059), and the third adhesive layer thickness of from 100 to 300 µm (0101). The ranges of thickness overlap the ranges recited in claim 15.
With respect to claim 17, Park and Park 2 teach the device of claim 14. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059), and the third adhesive layer thickness of from 5 to 200 µm (0101). The ranges of thickness overlap the ranges recited in claim 17; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MEPE 2144.05).
As to claim 18, Park and Park 2 teach the device of claim 14. Park discloses the buffer layer having a thickness of about 100 µm to about 300 µm (0059), and the third adhesive layer thickness of from 5 to 200 µm (0101). The ranges of thickness overlap the ranges recited in claim 18; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0088392 A1) (“Park”), in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0134007 A1) (“Lee”) and Park et al. (US 2019/0143638 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 21, Park discloses an electronic device comprising a foldable display apparatus (abstr., 0007, 0027), comprising a flexible display comprising a flexible display surface (0027), and a screen cover covering a flexible display surface (abstr., 0006, 0007), the screen cover comprising a buffer layer – element 13 – comprising a first side – implied - away from the flexible display and a second side close to the flexible display (0056, Figs. 3 and 7), a first film layer – element 11 - covering the first side of the buffer layer and a first adhesive layer – element 14 – bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer (0048, 0060, Figs. 3 and 7). Park is silent with respect to the second film layer and a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer.
Lee discloses a screen cover for a flexible display device (abstr.), the screen cover including a film layer – element 120 attached to a second side of a buffer layer – element 130 (0011, 0046, Fig. 1), the configuration of the buffer layer between two film layers providing for improved impact resistance of the cover (0009, 0011, 0044, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the screen cover of Park with a second film layer as disclosed in Lee for improved impact resistance. Lee is silent with respect to the second adhesive layer as recited in the claim, however, since Park discloses an adhesive layer bonding the first film layer to the first side of the buffer layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a second adhesive layer bonding the second film layer to the second side of the buffer layer of Park.
Regarding a first modulus of the first film layer being greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer being greater than the third modulus, Park discloses a modulus of the buffer layer of 7-30 MPa (abstr., 0008), while Lee discloses modulus of a film layer of no less than 1.5 GPa (0016).
Park 2 discloses a screen cover for a flexible display (abstr., 0005, 0006), wherein a film layer – the first base member - has a modulus greater than the buffer layer (0007, 0017-0019, 0101), the cover having improved impact resistance to an external impact (0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the screen cover of Park and Lee wherein a first modulus of the first film layer is greater than a third modulus of the buffer layer and a second modulus of the second film layer is greater than the third modulus, as such configuration is known in the art of screen covers for flexible displays as it improves impact resistance to an external impact.
Examiner’s Note
Claim 9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Park and Park 2 fail to teach or suggest the buffer layer having a thickness that is not greater than 50 µm. Lee, a reference cited previously teaches a thickness of the buffer layer of equal to or greater than 10 µm and equal to or less than 30 µm (0020), but the main reference Park discloses a thickness of the buffer layer in a range greater than recited in the claim.
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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Park and Park 2 fail to teach or suggest the buffer layer having a thickness that is not greater than 50 µm. Lee, a reference cited previously teaches a thickness of the buffer layer of equal to or greater than 10 µm and equal to or less than 30 µm (0020), but the main reference Park discloses a thickness of the buffer layer in a range greater than recited in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant discussed claim 1, pointing to apparent mistakes in the interpretation of the elements of the screen cover, wherein Park was cited as the main reference in the rejection. In the present Office Action the Examiner clarified the terminology used, as discussed above.
The Applicant argued there is no valid reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the structure of Park with the structure of Lee, arguing that the combination of the references is based on hindsight. The Applicant argued combining Lee with Park ignores the specific structure of Lee’s window and the perforated film design at the core of Lee’s disclosure. The Examiner notes Lee is a secondary reference that was cited for the teaching of a configuration of a buffer layer between two film layers in a window for a flexible display device, as discussed above. Any judgment of obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but as long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant argued that the rationale “for improved impact resistance” is insufficient because it applies generically to any combination of impact resistant screen covers. The Examiner notes the motivation to combine the references is found in Lee in par. [0045] referred to in the last Office Action where Lee discloses that to delay impact transmission time and thus, the impact resistance, it is necessary to increase the thickness of the window, and provides the films 110 and 120 for this purpose (0045, 0046).
Regarding claims 8 and 14 the Applicant argued that the combination of the cited references fails to disclose an adhesive layer directly bonding a buffer layer to a flexible display device, where the thickness of the adhesive layer is based on the thickness of the buffer layer. The Examiner notes Park discloses a third adhesive layer directly bonding the buffer layer to the flexible display device, as discussed above. The recitation “a third adhesive layer thickness that is based on the buffer layer thickness” was rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as it is not clear what is meant by “based on the buffer layer thickness.” The Applicant discussed paragraph of the specification wherein the thickness of the adhesive layer matches the thickness of the buffer layer. The Applicant stated that the pertinent paragraph has number [0066], but the Examiner found the information in par. [0053]. The Applicant stated that the thickness of a window-to-panel adhesive is to be proportional to, and not less than half of, the buffer layer thickness (p. 16 of the Remarks). Is there a formula to calculate the thickness of the third adhesive layer? The Applicant discussed Lee reference, including Lee’s buffer layer, but the Examiner clarified in the present Office Action that Park in fact teaches the third adhesive layer, as discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights