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 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 1-15, 17-19, 20, 25, and 27 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 1 recites “the first layer has a first magnitude for a property, and wherein the second layer has a second magnitude that is different than the first magnitude for the property,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which properties are within the scope of the claim, and it is unclear how the claim should be interpreted in the event a given property has either multiple possible magnitudes, no magnitude, or an indefinite magnitude. In addition, the present specification lists multiple potential properties, but it is not clear if the claimed property should be limited to the properties of the specification, or if other properties should be considered (and if so, which ones). Technically, the present language can be taken as encompassing indefinite properties (i.e., for example, a “gel-like” property, which is not detailed in the present specification). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting first and second layers which are either not the same composition, or not identical structurally due to a process step.
Claims 2-15, 17-19, and 20 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1. Note that dependent claims 16 and 21 are not rejected as indefinite, as they specify definite properties (i.e., in a way, claims 16 and 21 recite clarifying subject matter such that they are considered definite).
Claim 20 recites “the property comprises color,” which is indefinite. It is not clear how a color can have a magnitude (i.e., it is not clear if the claim is attempting to refer to, for example, a specific CIELAB value, or a specific saturation or brightness). The present specification does not aid in clarity of this matter. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying first and second layers which differ in color.
Claim 25 recites “wherein each first layer has an effective index of refraction that is equal to the second index of refraction,” which renders the claim indefinite. Paragraph [0171] notes that “sometimes” the effective index of refraction may be taken as “the total refractive index, overall refractive index, average refractive index, etc.,” and this refractive index is with respect to a total number of first layers (as opposed to individual first layers recited in claim 25). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a total refractive index for the first layers.
Claim 27 recites “the first and third adhesive layers,” but there is not antecedent basis for the recited third adhesive layer. Although a third adhesive layer is recited later in the claim, technically, claim 27 still lacks antecedent basis for the claimed third adhesive layer. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a third adhesive layer.
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 1-5, 13-14, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US2016/0370508A1) in view of LeCain et al (US2004/0027327A1)
With regards to claim 1, Jeong discloses a polarizing plate attached to a flexible organic light emitting display panel (i.e., an electronic device comprising a flexible display panel), the polarizing plate including a first adhesive layer 130 in contact with a second adhesive layer 140 used to attach the polarizing plate to the flexible organic light emitting display panel (i.e., a multilayer adhesive stack that is attached to the flexible display panel, wherein the multilayer adhesive stack includes a first layer formed from a first material and a second layer formed of a second material) (Jeong: abstract; para. [0042] and [0101]; Fig. 2). The first and second adhesive layer use different (meth)acrylic copolymer compositions and different curing agents in differing amounts (i.e., the first and second adhesive layers are not the same composition) (Jeong: para. [0103]-[0115]).
Jeong does not appear to disclose or teach an edge sealant at a periphery of the multilayer adhesive stack.
LeCain is directed to a front plane laminate for the manufacture of flexible electro-optic displays, the front plane laminate being disclosed with a multitude of edge seal configurations (LeCain: abstract; para. [0011], [0022], and [0152] Figs. 11-17 and 20). According to LeCain, it is well-known in the art to provide a sealing material in order to prevent ingress of materials from the environment into a display device (LeCain: para. [0022]). To this end, LeCain depicts its sealing material as surrounding, for example, the adhesive layers of a laminate (LeCain: para. [0164]; Fig. 20). Jeong and LeCain are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of flexible display devices comprising adhesive layers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the seal of LeCain to surround the periphery of at least the multilayer adhesive stack, in order to prevent ingress of materials from the environment into the layers of the multilayer adhesive stack (LeCain: para. [0022]).
With regards to claim 2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have obvious to have formed the seal as an underfill seal formed of a curable epoxy selected for the purpose of lamination (i.e., as an adhesive layer in direct contact with the adhesive layer stack) in order to further provide reduced diffusion of environmental factors in one dimension, and to reduce overall susceptibility to diffusion (LeCain: para. [0153]).
With regards to claim 3, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have additionally or alternatively used a tape with or for the edge sealant (i.e., the tape including a non-adhesive backing such as aluminum or stainless steel) in order to provide improved barrier properties (LeCain: para. [0159]).
With regards to claim 4, Jeong teaches that its first and second adhesive layers are only “on” each other, and therefore, intervening layers may be present laminate (Jeong: para. [0017]). Given that the adhesive layers of Jeong prevent separation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the intervening layer an adhesive layer for the purpose of preventing separation (Jeong: para. [0028]). The third adhesive layer could be made of a different composition from the first and second adhesive layers, such as a composition including a higher amount of crosslinking catalyst, in order to prevent moisture infiltration (Jeong: para. [0085]).
With regards to claim 5, Jeong depicts the first and second layers as occupying the same area and sharing a same periphery (i.e., implies the first layer extending around a periphery of the second layer) (Jeong: Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 13, it is noted that, for the purposes of reading on the present claims, the order of the first and second adhesive layers may be swapped (i.e., the second adhesive layer of Jeong may be viewed as the first adhesive layer of the claims, and the first adhesive layer of Jeong may be viewed as the second layer of the claims) (Jeong: Fig. 2). Jeong discloses its first adhesive layer (i.e., corresponding to the claimed second adhesive layer) as having silica or alumina particles (i.e., ceramic particles (Jeong: para. [0063]).
With regards to claim 14, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added inorganic particles to the composition of the second layer of the prior art structure (i.e., the claimed first layer) in order to provide improved hardness and mechanical strength, the particles being made of, for example, silica or alumina (i.e., materials having a different refractive index of the polymer of the first layer, or “bulk material” of Jeong) (Jeong: para. [0063]).
With regards to claim 16, it is noted that, for the purposes of reading on the present claims, the order of the first and second adhesive layers may be swapped (i.e., the second adhesive layer of Jeong may be viewed as the first adhesive layer of the claims, and the first adhesive layer of Jeong may be viewed as the second layer of the claims) (Jeong: Fig. 2). Jeong discloses its first adhesive layer (i.e., corresponding to the claimed second adhesive layer) as having silica or alumina particles (i.e., ceramic particles (i.e., leading to a difference in dielectric constant between the first and second layers) (Jeong: para. [0063]).
With regards to claim 18, Jeong further discloses the addition of a color regulator (i.e., a color correcting additive) into the first layer (Jeong: para. [0062]).
With regards to claim 20, the first layer has a reduced haze compared to the second layer (i.e., the first and second layers have a difference color) (Jeong: para. [0044].
With regards to claim 21, the first layer has a reduced haze compared to the second layer (i.e., the first and second layers have a difference in haze) (Jeong: para. [0044].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al and LeCain et al as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Min (US2015/0017417A1).
With regards to claim 15, Jeong and LeCain teach an electronic device as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Jeong and LeCain do not appear to teach the first layer as comprising a fiber-doped polymer.
Min is directed to a display device comprising an adhesive layer including a polymer resin and a transparent woven fiber (i.e., a fiber-doped polymer) (Min: abstract; para. [0026]). Min teaches adding the transparent woven fiber to the polymer resin of its adhesive layer in order to provide additional support and protect its display device (Min: para. [0026]). Jeong, LeCain, and Min are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of display devices comprising adhesive layers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the transparent woven fiber of Min in the composition for the first layer of Jeong and LeCain (thereby resulting in a fiber-doped polymer) in order to provide additional support and protection to the display device of Jeong and LeCain (Min: para. [0026]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,771 B2 (hereinafter ‘771) in view of LeCain et al.
With regards to claims 1 and 4, claim 1 of the ‘771 patent recites an electronic device comprising a flexible display panel and a multilayer adhesive stack attached to the flexible display panel, the multilayer adhesive stack including a first layer of an adhesive formed of a first material and a second layer of adhesive formed of a second material, the first layer of adhesive having a first magnitude for a property, and the second layer of adhesive having a second magnitude that is different than the first magnitude for the property. Like claim 1 of the ‘771 patent, claim 4 of the present application includes the presence of a third layer. Based on para. [0063] of the present application, the first, second, and third layers of the multilayer adhesive stack are formed of first, second, and third adhesive layers, by definition, and since the first, second, and third layers of the multilayer adhesive stack may be the only layers, then the first, second, and third layers are in contact with each other. It is noted that, regardless of ordering of the first, second, and third adhesive layers of claim 1 of the present Application, the scope of claim 1 of the present application overlaps with claim 1 of the ‘771 patent (in both cases, three adhesive layers having different properties are in contact with one another).
The only difference seen from claim 1 of the ‘771 patent and claims 1 and 4 of the present application is the inclusion of an edge sealant at the periphery of the multilayer adhesive stack.
However, LeCain is directed to a front plane laminate for the manufacture of flexible electro-optic displays, the front plane laminate being disclosed with a multitude of edge seal configurations (LeCain: abstract; para. [0011], [0022], and [0152] Figs. 11-17 and 20). According to LeCain, it is well-known in the art to provide a sealing material in order to prevent ingress of materials from the environment into a display device (LeCain: para. [0022]). To this end, LeCain depicts its sealing material as surrounding, for example, the adhesive layers of a laminate (LeCain: para. [0164]; Fig. 20). The ‘771 patent and LeCain are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of flexible display devices comprising adhesive layers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the seal of LeCain to surround the periphery of at least the multilayer adhesive stack, in order to prevent ingress of materials from the environment into the layers of the multilayer adhesive stack (LeCain: para. [0022]).
With regards to claim 2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have obvious to have formed the seal as an underfill seal formed of a curable epoxy selected for the purpose of lamination (i.e., as an adhesive layer in direct contact with the adhesive layer stack) in order to further provide reduced diffusion of environmental factors in one dimension, and to reduce overall susceptibility to diffusion (LeCain: para. [0153]).
With regards to claim 3, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have additionally or alternatively used a tape with or for the edge sealant (i.e., the tape including a non-adhesive backing such as aluminum or stainless steel) in order to provide improved barrier properties (LeCain: para. [0159]).
With regards to claim 5, LeCain teaches ensuring each of the layers of its adhesive stack are the same size for the purpose of enabling the formation of the edge seal (LeCain: para. [0118]-[0119]).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 6-12, 17, 19, 25, and 27 include subject matter which is distinguishable over the prior art of record. Presuming the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome, claims 6-12, 17, 19, and 25 would subsequently be found allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter distinguishing over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record are Jeong et al (US2016/0370508A1), LeCain et al (US2004/0027327A1), and Min (US2015/0017417A1).
As to claim 6, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach the multilayer adhesive stack as comprising third and fourth layers formed from the first material and wherein the second layer is interposed between third and fourth layers. Instead, Jeong teaches that its second adhesive layer is designed to adhere to the polarizer plate to a liquid crystal display panel. The second adhesive layer prevents crack generation due to expansion and shrinkage. This property is essentially the opposite of the design intent of the first adhesive layer. Therefore, Jeong teaches away from placement of an additional layer having a composition of the first adhesive layer over the second adhesive layer, as such modification would destroy the inventive utility of Jeong.
As to claim 7, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach first and second layers which are coplanar within a given plane and wherein an interface between the first and second layers is non-linear when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the given plane. It is noted that the adhesive layers of Jeong are designed to have reduced haze and improved transparency. It is likely that modification of the adhesive layers of Jeong to have this claimed structure would alter the optical properties of the resulting laminate, such that reduced haze and improved transparency cannot be guaranteed. More broadly, Jeong appears to desire suppression of physical variation. Therefore, Jeong teaches away from the subject matter of claim 7.
As to claim 8, claim 8 contains allowable subject matter due to dependence on claim 7.
As to claim 9, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach first and second layers which are coplanar within a given plane and wherein an interface between the first and second layers is diagonal when viewed in a direction parallel to the given plane. It is noted that the adhesive layers of Jeong are designed to have reduced haze and improved transparency. It is likely that modification of the adhesive layers of Jeong to have this claimed structure would alter the optical properties of the resulting laminate, such that reduced haze and improved transparency cannot be guaranteed. More broadly, Jeong appears to desire suppression of physical variation. Therefore, Jeong teaches away from the subject matter of claim 9.
As to claim 10, claim 10 contains allowable subject matter due to dependence on claim 9.
As to claim 11, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach the inclusion of a wire mesh which divides the multilayer adhesive stack into discrete patches. It is noted that the adhesive layers of Jeong are designed to have reduced haze and improved transparency. It is likely that modification of the adhesive layers of Jeong to have this claimed structure would alter the optical properties of the resulting laminate, such that reduced haze and improved transparency cannot be guaranteed. More broadly, Jeong appears to desire suppression of physical variation. Therefore, Jeong teaches away from the subject matter of claim 11.
As to claim 12, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach the multilayer adhesive stack as comprising patches of the first layer and the second layer. Jeong specifically selects the composition of its first layer to provide improved peel strength (essentially, so that the second layer does not require the same peel strength), and for the second layer to be directly joined to an adjacent display panel. Therefore, Jeong is considered to teach away from the claimed configuration.
As to claim 17, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach the multilayer adhesive stack as comprising a third layer formed from the second material and wherein the first layer is interposed between the second and third layers. Instead, Jeong teaches that its first adhesive layer is designed to provide improved peel strength, while the second adhesive layer is intended to provide adhesion to a display panel. Therefore, Jeong is considered to teach away from the subject matter of claim 17.
As to claim 19, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min teach the incorporation of a dye or pigment. Jeong teaches away from adjusting the color of its layers (citing concern of discoloration). Therefore, Jeong is considered to teach away from the subject matter of claim 19.
As to claim 25, the claim depends from claim 22, and none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min teach a multilayer adhesive stack including alternating first and second layers, wherein each first layer comprises particles dispersed in a first material, wherein each second layer comprises a second material, wherein the first material has a first index of refraction, wherein the second material has a second index of refraction that is greater than the first index of refraction, and wherein the particles have a third index of refraction that is greater than the first and second indices of refraction.
As to claim 27, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach a multilayer adhesive stack comprising a first adhesive layer with a first Young’s modulus, a second adhesive layer with a second modulus, wherein the second adhesive layer is between the first and third adhesive layers, and a third adhesive layer with a third Young’s modulus, wherein the second Young’s modulus is less than the first and third Young’s moduli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 and 26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are Jeong et al (US2016/0370508A1), LeCain et al (US2004/0027327A1), and Min (US2015/0017417A1).
As to claim 22, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min teach a multilayer adhesive stack including alternating first and second layers, wherein each first layer comprises particles dispersed in a first material, wherein each second layer comprises a second material, wherein the first material has a first index of refraction, wherein the second material has a second index of refraction that is greater than the first index of refraction, and wherein the particles have a third index of refraction that is greater than the first and second indices of refraction.
As to claims 23-24, claims 23-24 contain the allowable subject matter of claim 22.
As to claim 26, none of Jeong, LeCain, and Min disclose or teach a multilayer adhesive stack attaching a hard coating to a display cover layer, wherein the multilayer adhesive stack comprises first and second polyethylene terephthalate layers that alternate with first and second optically clear adhesive layers and weherein each one of the first and second polyethylene terephthalate layers has a thickness that is less than 30 microns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 V. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights