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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
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(s) 8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 refers to “the retardation base material layer side” which lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear which side is being referred to.
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 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.
If 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
When something is indicated as being “obvious” this should be taken as shorthand for “prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention”.
When a range is indicated as overlapping a claimed range, unless otherwise noted, this should be taken as short hand to indicate that the claimed range is obvious in view of the overlapping range in the prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 113593414, see machine translation) in view of Inada (WO 2023013416, see machine translation, please note- Inada has a foreign priority date of 08/2021 and designates the US such that this foreign priority date is the effective filing date of Inada under 102(b)(1) and 102(d), see MPEP 2151) in view of Kim (U.S. 2017/0192462).
Regarding claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-19, Gu teaches an OLED display as in claim 16-17 (with cover plate/window 501, polarizer 401, touch sensor, and OLED layers 301-316, [0084]-[0086], note that the touch sensor is not illustrated but is disclosed as being between the OLED and upper layers, thus rendering obvious the sequence of claim 18) with a camera that is mounted under the display panel via an intervening support film (the present back plate film) so as to avoid a front camera punch hole in the display, as in claim 19 ([0045]-[0050], [0078]-[0082], FIG. 4 and 5, note that there is no hole in the display layer 30 in FIG. 4 and 5, but instead the corresponding area is very lightly shaded to indicate that portion of the display is transparent, not a hole). Gu also teaches that the back plate film has a retardation layer with in plane and thickness retardation values overlapping the claimed ranges (based on the “first threshold”) and with an overlapping thickness, as in claims 2-4 ([0046]-[0048], [0054], [0057]). Gu also discloses an adhesive on the back plate film as well as protective film 3 and release film 4 contacting the adhesive ([0070]) but does not disclose the claimed type of adhesive or protective/release materials. The back plate film is applied to the display via an adhesive after the release layer is removed, as in claim 17.
However, Inada is also directed to protective films, release layers and adhesives for use in optically functional films for OLED displays, and discloses that a suitable protective film is PET attached to the film being protected via a pressure sensitive adhesive that may be acrylic with a curing agent (crosslinking catalyst), which is disclosed as a suitable adhesive for all adhesives in the overall laminate, and the release film may be PET with a silicone treatment, and with all the above layers have thicknesses overlapping the present claims, as in claims 6, 8-10, 12-14 ([0002], [0010]-[0013], [0045], [0047], [0051]-[0052], [0054]) such that it would have been obvious to have used the protective film with adhesive for the protective film in Gu because Inada teaches that the materials and thicknesses are suitable for providing the desired protective qualities and the adhesive allows the protective film to adhere to the optically functional (retardation) layer, and to have used the release film on the adhesive side of the optically functional layer (retardation) layer because Inada teaches that such materials provide suitable release qualities, and to have used the particular pressure sensitive adhesive from Inada for the above mentioned adhesive layers (i.e., between the protective film and the retardation layer and between the release layer and the retardation layer) because Inada discloses that such adhesive materials and thicknesses provide suitable adhesion qualities. Modified Gu does not disclose the particular adhesive strength of the pressure sensitive adhesive as in claim 7, but the adhesive strength of the adhesive would have been obvious to adjust in order to optimize the degree of adhesion being provided. Inada also discloses that antistatic agents may be included in the pressure sensitive adhesive ([0052]) which would make the PSA between the protective film and the retardation film (the side opposite the adhesive and release layers) an antistatic film as in claim 5, with the degree of antistatic properties being obvious to adjust as part of optimizing the degree of static protections (antistatic properties further making the inclusion of antistatic agents into the above adhesive obvious to provide antistatic properties to Gu based on Inada).
Modified Gu does not explicitly disclose that the touch display with camera may be used in a “mobile phone” (as in claims 18-19) but one having ordinary skill in the art would have found this to be obvious (even in the absence of a published disclosure) in view of the proliferation of “smart phones” having touch displays and cameras as of effective filing date of the present invention. This is confirmed by Kim showing that such displays and cameras were known for use in mobile phones (see abstract, [0032]) such that it would have been obvious to have used the display from modified Gu in a mobile phone in order to apply the display to as many commercially viable products as possible).
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (CN 113593414, see machine translation) in view of Inada (WO 2023013416, see machine translation, please note- Inada has a foreign priority date of 08/2021 and designates the US such that this foreign priority date is the effective filing date of Inada under 102(b)(1) and 102(d), see MPEP 2151) in view of Kim (U.S. 2017/0192462), as applied toc alim 9 and 13 above, and further in view of Ogawa (KR 20200014222, cited by Applicant, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, modified Gu teaches all of the above subject matter but does not disclose that the protective and release films have antistatic treatments on the opposite side as the adhesive, however, Ogawa is also directed to PET films on either side of an optically functional film for a display and teaches that such PET layers may have antistatic treatments on the side opposite the PSA in order to provide antistatic benefits such that it would have been obvious to have provided such antistatic layers in modified Gu in order to provide the corresponding antistatic benefits. Likewise, the degree of antistatic properties are obvious to adjust as part of optimizing the degree of static protections.
Conclusion
References cited in any corresponding foreign applications have been considered but would be cumulative to the above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B NELSON whose direct telephone number is (571)272-9886 and whose direct fax number is (571)273-9886 and whose email address is Michael.Nelson@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat, 7am - 7pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 (faxes sent to this number will take longer to reach the examiner than faxes sent to the direct fax number above).
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.
/MICHAEL B NELSON/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights