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 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim II (KR2022-0022811; machine translation relied upon) in view of Allen (US Pub. No. 2015/0203618).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6 and 9-10, Kim II teaches an adhesive composition for a foldable display (title) comprising a cross-linked acrylic copolymer, the adhesive having a modulus at –20° C of 8,000 Pa or more and 40,000 Pa or less, overlapping the claimed ranges of claims 1, 4 and 6 of –20° C modulus, with specific embodiments having storage modulus at –20° C of 26,340 and 14,020 Pa, within the claimed ranges of claims 1, 4 and 6 (table 2, examples 5-6, fourth column from left), storage modulus at 90° C of 12,000 Pa or more and 40,000 Pa or less, with specific embodiments having modulus at 90° C of 38,611 Pa and 16,060 Pa (table 2, examples 5-6, fourth column from left) and a difference between modulus at -20° C and 90° C of less than or equal to 13,000 Pa, with specific embodiments comprising n-butyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate (table 1, inventive embodiments 5 and 6 – top embodiments are the inventive embodiments) (machine translation at pages 4-9). Kim II does not specifically disclose diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA). Allen teaches a methacrylate adhesive where a suitable plasticizer is diethylhexyl adipate (paragraphs [0012]-[0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use diethylhexyl adipate as taught by Allen in the adhesive of Kim II as a known suitable plasticizer for a methacrylate adhesive (see Allen at paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), in order to make the adhesive softer, more flexible, and/or easier to process – the purpose of a plasticizer. Such a combination of elements, notably an acrylate adhesive comprising n-butyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate in amounts as claimed as taught by Kim II and DEHA as taught by Allen, is believed to be the same product as that of Applicant. “’When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’” MPEP § 2112.01 citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, because the product is believed to be the same, the claimed peel force, haze and modulus change rate limitations of claim 1 and modulus limitation of claim 6 are believed to be met.
Regarding claim 7, Kim II teaches a weight average molecular weight of 1,000,000 g/mol or more and 1,800,000 g/mol or less (machine translation at page 7), with specific embodiments having weight average molecular weight of 1,400,000 and 1,310,000 (table 2, inventive embodiments 5 and 6 – second column from left).
Regarding claims 11-13, Kim II teaches a specific embodiment with n-butyl acrylate in a ratio of 30% (claimed alkyl (meth)acrylate unit) (falling within the claimed range of claim 11), 30% laurel acrylate (claimed unit of Formula 3) (resulting in 100 parts by weight of the unit of Formula 3 relative to 100 parts by weight of the alkyl (meth)acrylate unit, falling within the claimed range of claim 12), and 20% 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate (claimed polar functional group-containing unit) (resulting in 66.7 parts by weight of the polar functional group-containing unit relative to 100 parts by weight of the alkyl (meth)acrylate unit, falling within the claimed range of claim 13).
Regarding claims 14-16, Kim II teaches an optical film and an adhesive film formed on at least one surface of the optical film, and a flexible display panel configured to be foldable or rollable, with the adhesive present on one or both sides of the display panel, where the adhesive is the inventive adhesive (title; machine translation at pages 2 and 10-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 6-7 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim II in view of Allen have been fully considered and are persuasive – specifically, it is noted that not enough evidence was provided that Kim II alone would teach the claimed properties. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the same references, because the combination of references is believed to teach the same product as that of Applicant, which would therefore result in the same properties.
Applicant's additional arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against Kim II that it does not teach a composition comprising n-butyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate. Applicant states that Kim II’s Table 1 identifies the first monomer in examples 5 and 6 as 2-EHA. This is correct. However, the second, third, and fourth monomers in each of these examples is n-butyl acrylate, lauryl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate. Applicant’s composition has been amended to use the language “comprising”, and as such does not exclude the presence of 2-EHA.
Applicant argues that Allen and Kim II have different technical problems, performance requirements, and polymer chemistries, that Kim II already achieves a low -20 degree C modulus without any plasticizer, and that adding a plasticizer such as DEHA would be expected to reduce cohesive strength and increase haze. However, Allen and Kim II are both directed to acrylate adhesives. A plasticizer for an acrylate adhesive would be expected to function similarly, even if the adhesives themselves are designed for different purposes with different properties. It is known to use a plasticizer in an acrylate adhesive for an optical display (see Kim machine translation at pages 6-7 and 24). Applicant’s argument that adding a plasticizer such as DEHA would be expected to reduce cohesive strength and increase haze are mere argument, with no evidence provided, and are found not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 25, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights