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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on November 13, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant has cited a Korean Notice of Allowance document in the IDS (see under “OTHER DOCUMENTS”). However, a concise explanation of the relevance is not provided for this document.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al (US 20170321087 A1).
As to claim 1, Moon discloses a flexible display device (optical display device) comprising a photoelectric part which can be OLED, LED, or LCD (optical display device panel), a first adhesive film formed on the photoelectric element part, a touch function part formed on the first adhesive film, a second adhesive film formed on the touch function part, and a window film (optical display device panel) formed on the second adhesive film (abstract, 0013).
Further, as to claim 1, Moon discloses the first adhesive film and the second adhesive film has a storage modulus of about 10 Kpa to about 1,000 Kpa at -20°C (0018). The claimed range of storage modulus of 0.5 MPa (500 Kpa) or less overlaps or lies within the storage modulus disclosed by Moon such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the storage modulus as claimed and as rendered obvious by Moon, motivated by the desire to form the adhesive film of Moon so that it can be used in the optical display device of Moon.
Further, as to claim 1, Moon discloses the first adhesive film and the second adhesive film has a haze of about 5% or less after 200% stretching at a thickness of 100 µm (0019). The disclosure of haze of about 5% in Moon meets claimed haze of more than 3%.
Further, as to claim 1, Moon is silent as to disclosing polarizing plate.
As to claim 2, Moon is silent as to disclosing anti-reflection film.
As to claims 3-6, Moon is silent as to disclosing properties (storage modulus, adhesive film having a value of 0.5 to 20 as per Equation 1, light transmittance, and peel strength with respect to a glass plate). However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness is established. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). The examiner submits that at present, no difference is seen between the claimed adhesive film and the adhesive film disclosed by Moon as set forth previously. As such, absent any factual evidence on the record, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned properties are inherently present in the adhesive film of Moon.
As to claim 7, Moon discloses that the adhesive film is formed of a pressure sensitive adhesive composition comprising a (meth)acrylate copolymer having a hydroxyl group (matrix for the adhesive film) and organic particles (organic particles embedded in the matrix) (0011).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR20170121037 A discloses flexible display apparatus.
WO 2011105875 discloses a polarizing plate.
Matano et al. (US 20070267133 A1) discloses a PSA for applying optical functional film.
Shin et al. (US 20160289517 A1) discloses a adhesive film and a display member.
Nam et al. (US 20160177145 A1) discloses adhesive composition for polarizing plate.
Cho et al. (US 20170253769 A1) discloses an adhesive film and an optical film. Further, the adhesive film has a haze of about 3.0% or less (0044).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISH P DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am ET to 4:30 PM ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/ANISH P DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights