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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 5/18/2026 and 08/14/2026 have been considered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 8/3/2026. In that response, Applicant amended the specification and amended claims 1, 9-13, 15, 17-18.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/719,540 filed on 6/13/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been overcome.
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nodono et al. (US 2018/0370207, hereinafter, “Nodono”) in view of Chibana et al. (US 2022/0334296, hereinafter, “Chibana”) and Bu et al. (WO 2021/026408, hereinafter, “Bu”).
Regarding claim 15, Nodono discloses a flexible display device 100 (Fig. 5, [0117]) comprising:
a flexible display structure 50 comprising a light source (Fig. 5, [0117]);
a flexible coverlens 71 positioned on the flexible display structure (Fig. 5, [0127]-[0129]);
wherein the flexible coverlens comprises a substrate 10 (Fig. 4, 5, [0127]-[0129]);
an adhesion layer 20 over a surface of the substrate (Fig. 4, [0097]).
Nodono does not disclose a hardcoat layer over the adhesion layer, wherein the hardcoat layer and the glass layer are positioned on opposite sides of the silicon-containing adhesion layer, and wherein a silane-containing adhesion promoter contributes to bonding the hardcoat layer to the silicon-containing adhesion layer. Nodono discloses that the layer 20 may be a hardcoat layer to impart surface hardness enhancement ([0082]). Moreover, the layer 20 incorporates a silane-containing adhesion promoter 25 (Fig. 4, [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono so that a separate hardcoat layer is formed on the adhesion layer 20, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), for providing additional protection to the display structure 50.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to further modify Nodono so that a separate silane-containing adhesion promoter is provided between the separate hardcoat layer and the adhesion layer, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), for providing adhesiveness between the hardcoat layer and the adhesion layer ([0107] in Nodono).
In the above modified Nodono device, the (separate) hardcoat layer and the glass layer are positioned on opposite sides of the silicon-containing adhesion layer, and the (separate) silane-containing adhesion promoter contributes to bonding the (separate) hardcoat layer to the silicon-containing adhesion layer.
Nodono does not disclose that the adhesive layer 20 contains silicon.
Chibana discloses a polygon mirror 5 (Fig. 6, [0075]). In one embodiment, an adhesive layer 520 is formed between base body 503, reflecting layer 521 and protection layer 522. The adhesive layer 520 contains silicon ([0075]-[0076]).
Both Nodono and Chibana disclose adhesive layers formed between optical components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono so that the adhesive layer 20 contains silicon, as taught by Chibana, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Nodono/Chibana does not disclose wherein the substrate layer comprises glass characterized by a thickness of less than 50 μm.
Bu discloses cover substates for optical articles, e.g., display screens ([0001]). In one embodiment, Bu discloses a glass article 100 comprising a glass substrate 110 (Fig. 1, [0074]).
Both Nodono and Bu disclose optical articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono/Chibana so that the substrate comprises a glass layer, as taught by Bu, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945), for the purpose of appropriately enhancing the transparency of the coverlens.
Nodono/Chibana/Bu does not disclose the thickness of the substrate layer is less than 50 μm.
Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses that the thickness of the substrate layer is in the range from 0.1 μm to 200 μm ([0075] in Bu).
Here, the claimed range for the thickness of the substrate overlaps with the range for the thickness disclosed by Nodono/Chibana/Bu. In the case where the claimed ranges "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), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono/Chibana/Bu so that the thickness of the substrate lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of appropriately enhancing the hardness of the coverlens.
Regarding claim 16, Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses the flexible display device of claim 15, wherein
the silicon-containing adhesion layer comprises a silicon oxide layer ([0076] in Chibana).
Regarding claim 17, Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses the flexible display device of claim 15, wherein
the silicon-containing adhesion promotor comprises an acryloxyalkyl silane compound ([0093] in Bu).
Regarding claim 18, Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses the flexible display device of claim 15.
Nodono/Chibana/Bu does not disclose the flexible coverlens is characterized by a thickness of less than 100 μm. Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses that the thickness of the substrate is less than 50 μm (claim 10), the thickness of the adhesion layer is less than 1 μm (claim 11) and the thickness of the hardcoat is less than 50 μm (claim 13). The thickness of the flexible coverlens is approximately the sum of the above three thicknesses.
Here, the claimed range for the thickness of the flexible coverlens overlaps with the range for the thickness disclosed by Nodono/Chibana/Bu. In the case where the claimed ranges "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), MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono/Chibana/Bu so that the thickness of the flexible coverlens lies within the claimed range, for the purpose of appropriately enhancing the hardness/flexibility of the coverlens.
Regarding claim 19, Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses the flexible display device of claim 15.
Nodono/Chibana/Bu does not disclose wherein the flexible display structure further comprises a touch panel. In Nodono/Chibana/Bu a touch panel/sensor 70 is formed separately on top of the flexible display structure ([0117] in Nodono).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Nodono/Chibana/Bu so that the flexible display structure further comprises a touch panel, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 20, Nodono/Chibana/Bu discloses the flexible display device of claim 15, wherein
the light source comprises a light emitting diode, an organic light emitting diode, a liquid crystal display, or a quantum dot display ([0117] in Nodono).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest
the limitations of the independent claim in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper, which include: (claim 1) “A flexible coverlens processing method comprising:… subsequent to depositing the silicon-containing adhesion laver on the treated surface of the substrate layer, incorporating a silane-containing adhesion promoter on the silicon-containing adhesion layer; and subsequent to incorporating the silane-containing adhesion promoter on the silicon-containing adhesion layer, forming a hardcoat layer over the silicon-containing adhesion layer, wherein the silane-containing adhesion promoter is bonded to both the hardcoat layer and the silicon-containing adhesion layer.”; (claim 9) “A flexible coverlens comprising:… a silicon-containing adhesion layer in contact with a surface on the substrate layer,…and a hardcoat layer over the silicon-containing adhesion layer,… wherein the adhesion promoter is bonded to the hardcoat layer and the silicon- containing adhesion layer.”.
Claims 2-8, 10-14 depend on claim 1 and 9, respectively, and are allowable for the reasons given above.
In the flexible coverlens processing method of claim 1, a silicon-containing adhesion layer 206 is deposited on a surface of substrate layer 202 (Fig. 2A), followed by incorporation of a silane-containing adhesion promoter 208 on the silicon-containing adhesion layer 206 (Fig. 2B), followed by formation of hardcoat layer 210 over the silicon-containing adhesion layer 206 (Fig. 2C) so that the silane-containing adhesion promoter 208 is bonded to both the hardcoat layer 210 and the silicon-containing adhesion layer 206.
The flexible coverlens of claim 9 comprises a substrate layer 202; a silicon-containing adhesion layer 206 in contact with a surface on the substrate layer 202, wherein the silicon-containing adhesion layer includes a silicon-containing adhesion promoter 208; and a hardcoat layer 212 over the silicon-containing adhesion layer 206, wherein the hardcoat layer and the substrate layer are positioned on opposite sides of the silicon-containing adhesion layer, and wherein the adhesion promoter 208 is bonded to the hardcoat layer 212 and the silicon- containing adhesion layer 206 (Fig. 2B, 2D).
Nodono discloses a laminate comprising a substrate 10 and a functional layer 20 which may be an adhesion layer or a hardcoat layer to impart surface hardness enhancement (Fig. 4, [0082], [0097]). Moreover, the layer 20 includes an adhesion promoter layer 25 between the layer 20 and substrate 10 ([0106]-[0107]).
However, in Nodono, the adhesion promoter layer 25 is between the layer 20 and substrate 10 (Fig. 4), which cannot occur according to the claimed sequence of method steps of claim 1, where the adhesion promoter is incorporated on the adhesion layer after the deposition of the adhesion layer on the substrate layer.
Moreover, even in a modified Nodono where an additional separate adhesion layer is formed on layer 20 (constituting a hardcoat layer) with an additional separate adhesion promoter layer therebetween, such structure does not disclose the claimed bonding of promoter layer 208 and the additional adhesion layer according to claim 9. In the device of claim 9, the adhesion promoter 208 bonds the hardcoat layer 212 and the adhesion layer 206 (Fig. 4).
Herbert et al. (WO 2019/123393A1, hereinafter, “Herbert”) discloses a laminate 100 comprising a substrate 106, and adhesive layer 102 bonded to the substrate 106 via an adhesion promoter 104 disposed therebetween (Fig. 1, p. 4, lines 23-27). Herbert is silent as to a laminate comprising an adhesion layer and a hardcoat layer with an adhesion promoter therebetween.
None of the cited art herein discloses the claimed sequence of method steps resulting in the claimed bonding between the adhesion promoter and the hardcoat layer.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 (similarly for independent claim 9) Applicant stated
“Nodono cannot be manipulated in such a way to suggest this order of operations as the primer layer 25 of Nodono (cited as being allegedly equivalent to the adhesion promoter) is disposed between the resin film 10 (cited as being allegedly equivalent to the claimed substrate layer) and the functional layer 20 (cited as being allegedly equivalent to the claimed adhesion layer). See Id. at pgs. 5 and 6; see also Nodono, para. [0106]. As such, the allegedly equivalent hardcoat layer silane-containing adhesion promoter (or primer layer 25 of Nodono) cannot be interpreted as being bonded to both the hardcoat layer and the silicon-containing adhesion layer (such as within functional layer 20 of Nodono”, see p. 8 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Regarding independent claim 15 Applicant stated “Similar to independent claim 1, independent claim 15 recites in part a silane-containing adhesion promoter contributes to bonding the hardcoat layer to the silicon-containing adhesion layer. For similar reasoning as independent claim 1, independent claim 15 is believed to be allowable over the cited references”, see p. 9 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. It is noted that claim 15 recites “a silane-containing adhesion promoter contributes to bonding the hardcoat layer to the silicon-containing adhesion layer”, without specifying that said adhesion promoter is the one incorporated to the adhesion layer (in other words, a separate adhesion promoter may bond the adhesion layer with a separate hardcoat layer).
The rejection of claim 15 and independents is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action, and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights