DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 25-26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khachatryan et al. (US 20180342566).
Khachatryan discloses a flexible display device. Concerning claims 1 and 28, Khachatryan discloses the flexible display device comprises a substrate upon which an array is disposed and upon the array, a protective laminate is disposed (FIGS. 3-7 and 9; para. 0053-0101), wherein the protective laminate comprises two shear thickening layers (elements 111 and 112), each comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane, wherein the second layer (element 112) disclosed by Khachatryan is equivalent to the claimed first layer which has a Young’s modulus (or elastic modulus) higher than the other layer (element 111) at a lower shear rate (para. 0094). This is taken to mean that the Young’s modulus of element 112 is higher than the Young’s modulus of element 111 at shear rates above 1400 mm/min, wherein the Young’s modulus of element 112 is from about 400 Mpa to about 1600 MPa (FIG. 6B). With respect to the term “mobile terminal”, it is noted that display device is intended to be a touchscreen and is bendable or rollable which makes the structure mobile and meets the limitations as claimed (para. 0003 and 0079-0081).
Regarding claims 2 and 26, the thermoplastic polyurethane is a polyester-based and polyether-based, wherein the polyester and polyether are considered modifications and meet the limitations as claimed (para. 0089). With respect to claims 4 and 28, as shown in Figure 6B, element 111 has a Young’s modulus below 400 MPa at shear rates of less than 1250 mm/min which meets the limitations as claimed (FIG. 6B). In regards to claims 6-7 and 30, the same structure as disclosed above is disposed on the lower surface of the substrate having the same layer structure as claimed and same materials as the first protective laminate (i.e. element 111 closer to the substrate) (para. 0104-0108).
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gan (WO 2019/113967). US20200361175 is used as the translation for the WIPO document since the description must be translated as-is into English. See MPEP 1893.01(d).
Gan discloses a flexible cover for impact protection for a display device. Concerning claim 1, Gan discloses the flexible cover is disposed on an OLED array which would include a substrate, wherein the flexible cover discloses layer comprising a shear thickening fluid (FIGS. 1 and 2; elements 101 and 200) and a layer comprising polycarbonate, PMMA, and the like (element 300) disposed above the layer comprising a shear thickening fluid (FIGS. 1 and 2; para. 0038-0055 and 0065-0068). Given that the layer comprising polycarbonate, PMMA, and the like is the same materials as disclosed, the elastic modulus would be the same as that claimed. With respect to claim 2, the shear thickening liquid is a gel with a dispersed nanoparticle, resulting in a modified material in light and would meet the limitations as claimed. Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the thickness of element 300 is less than combined elements 200 and 101 and would meet the limitations as claimed (FIGS. 1 and 2).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khachatryan et al. (US 20180342566).
Khachatryan discloses the above, including a TFT structure for the display array comprising a plurality of insulating structures on gate electrodes and the like (para. 0054-0081). Given that the structure of the array depends upon the type of display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed structure to produce the desired display device. Further, with respect to claim 10, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the display device has a display region and non-display region, wherein the structure and placement of the elements as claimed would depend on the specific device. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed structure and placement in order to function correctly.
Claims 25, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan (WO 2019/113967). US20200361175 is used as the translation for the WIPO document since the description must be translated as-is into English. See MPEP 1893.01(d).
Gan discloses the above, including broadly use as a display device. Given that display devices are known to be placed in mobile devices such as telephones and laptops, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose such a display device in a mobile terminal for an impact protected display device. Examiner notes that the treatment of claims 1, 2, and 5 are applicable to claims 25, 26, and 29.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13-16, and 27 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. The prior art is silent to the elements as claimed in the above cited claims in combination with claims 1, 8, and 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights