DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Drawings 3
III. Information Disclosure Statement 3
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
A. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0345799 (“Sato”). 4
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7
A. Claims 1-3, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato. 8
B. Claims 4-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of WO 2024/090540 (“Kataoka”). 10
VI. Pertinent Prior Art 14
Conclusion 15
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. Drawings
The replacement drawing sheet was received on 07/26/2024. This drawings is acceptable.
III. Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references cited in the IDS filed 06/25/2024 and 02/20/2025 have been considered to the extent that they have been provided in the English language. (See MPEP 609.04(a)(III) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3).)
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0345799 (“Sato”).
With regard to claim 1, Sato discloses, generally in Figs. 1-4,
1. A display device foldable about a folding axis, the display device comprising:
[1] a display panel 11 [¶ 31; Figs. 1, 4];
[2] a cover window 2 [¶¶ 31, 85-90] on the display panel 11; and
[3a] an optical film 3, 3/5 [i.e. “resin layer 3” (¶¶ 31-35, 48-84, 93-105)] on the cover window 2,
[3b] the optical film 3 having a machine direction MD [21 or 22 in Fig. 2] and a transverse direction TD [22 or 21, respectively in Fig. 2] [¶¶ 69-72, infra],
[4] wherein, the one of the machine direction MD and the transverse direction TD of the optical film 3 having a larger crack strain forms an angle in a range of 15° to 120° [i.e. 45° to 90°, particularly preferably 90° (¶ 71-74)] with the folding axis [¶¶ 37-44 and the following discussion].
With regard to feature [4] of claim 1, Sato discloses as explained below.
First, stretching of the polymer film along the first direction 21 by, e.g. 4.4, 3.9, 5.8, 6.5 times its original dimension, and along the second direction 22 by, e.g., 1.4 times its original dimension (¶¶ 153-157), results in the elastic modulus E1 in the first direction 21 being greater than the elastic modulus E2 in the second direction 22. Most preferably 1.4 ≤ E1/E2 ≤ 2.0 (¶¶ 48-51 and Tables 1 and 2 in ¶ 183 on pp. 13-14). The same “unoriented” polymer film, once stretched to different extents in each of the first 21 and second 22 directions at 90° to each other (supra), will inherently, necessarily have different “crack strains” in said first 21 and second 22 directions. As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
Second, Sato states that the first 21 direction (and consequently the second direction 22) can be arbitrarily chosen to be either the machine direction MD or the transverse direction TD, stating in this regard,
[0069] The first direction [21] in the plane of the resin layer [3] is preferably the main orientation direction. That is, the first direction [21] in the plane of the resin layer is preferably a direction exhibiting the maximum refractive index in the plane of the resin layer [3]. This is because, in a resin layer [3], molecules generally tend to be oriented along the main orientation direction, and the composite elastic modulus in the main orientation direction tends to be high.
[0070] Incidentally, the main orientation direction refers to, for example, the orientation direction when the resin layer is uniaxially orientated, and refers to an orientation direction with higher orientation magnification [i.e. stretched more] when the resin layer [3] is biaxially orientated.
[0071] Also, the main orientation direction of the resin layer [3] may be, for example, either MD direction or TD direction. That is, when the first direction [21] in the plane of the resin layer [3] is the main orientation direction, the first direction [21] in the plane of the resin layer [3] may be, for example, either MD direction or TD direction.
[0072] Incidentally, the MD direction (Machine Direction) refers to a flow direction of the resin film [3], and the TD direction (Transverse Direction) refers to a direction orthogonally crossing the MD direction.
(Sato: ¶¶ 69-72; emphasis added)
Third, Sato explains that orienting the first direction 21, i.e. main orientation direction, of the polymer film 3 at 45° to 90°, “particularly preferably at 90°” relative to the “folding direction 20”—which is perpendicular to the folding axis (see Figs. 2 and 3)—provides better dynamic and static bending resistance to the glass cover window 2 and the overall display panel 11 (¶¶ 73-74, 171-184). In this regard, Sato states,
[0073] In the present disclosure, as shown in FIG. 2, the angle θ formed by the first direction 21 whose composite elastic modulus is relatively high in the plane of the resin layer 3, and the folding direction 20 [—perpendicular to the folding axis—] of the flexible organic EL display device is 45° or more and 90° or less. The angle θ is preferably 60° or more and 90° or less, more preferably 75° or more and 90° or less, further preferably 85° or more and 90° or less, and particularly preferably 90°. Incidentally, the angle θ refers to a smaller angle among the angles formed by the first direction having relatively high composite elastic modulus in a plane of the resin layer [3] and the folding direction [20] of the flexible organic EL display device. By the angle θ being in the above range, when the flexible organic EL display device is opened after being folded repeatedly, the flexible organic EL display device easily returns to the flat condition, that is, the restorability after being folded repeatedly is excellent, and a crease or a folding mark hardly occurs. Therefore, the bending resistance when the flexible organic EL display device is repeatedly folded may be improved.
[0074] In the case described above, the angle formed by the second direction [22] having relatively low composite elastic modulus in a plane of the resin layer [3] and the folding direction [20] [—perpendicular to the folding axis—] of the flexible organic EL display device is 0° or more and 45° or less, preferably 0° or more and 30° or less, more preferably 0° or more and 15° or less, further preferably 0° or more and 5° or less, and particularly preferably 0°. Incidentally, the angle refers to a smaller angle among the angles formed by the second direction having relatively low composite elastic modulus in a plane of the resin layer [3] and the folding direction [20] of the flexible organic EL display device.
(Sato: ¶¶ 73-74; emphasis added)
Because (1) the folding direction 20 and the folding axis are perpendicular to each other and (2) the first 21 and second 22 directions are perpendicular to each other, having one of the first 21 and second 22 directions at 45° relative to the folding direction 20 results in the other of the first 21 and second 22 directions also being at 45° relative to the folding direction 20 as well as the folding axis. Therefore, the direction, 21 or 22, i.e. MD and TD, of both crack strains, and therefore the larger crack strain of the two directions, makes an angle relative to the folding axis that is necessarily within the claimed range of 15° to 120°.
Actual examples of having the first direction 21 and therefore the second direction 22 at 45° relative to the folding direction 20 and therefore to folding axis are shown in Tables 1 and 2 on pages 13-14.
This is all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 14 reads,
14. The display device of claim 1, wherein the one from among the machine direction and the transverse direction of the optical film having a larger crack strain has a crack strain of 2% or more.
It is held, absent evidence to the contrary that, at least one of the first 21 and second 22 directions has a “crack strain of 2% or more”, as required by claim 14, because actual tests of the display cover 2/4/3 (Fig. 5) of dynamically folding 200,000 times when the angle between the main orientation direction 21 and folding direction are, i.e. first direction 21 in Fig. 2 is at 45° to 90° relative to the folding direction (i.e. 0° to 45° relative to the folding axis) and correspondingly the second direction 22 assembly of the is at 45° to 0° relative to the folding direction (i.e. 90° to 45° relative to the folding axis)—shows no crack/fractures or folding marks (¶¶ 168-184). As such, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicant to prove the contrary. (See MPEP 2112(I)-(V).)
Again, whichever of the first 21 and second 22 direction has the greater claimed “crack strain” within the meaning of the Instant Application can be arbitrarily chosen as the MD or TD because Sato explicitly suggests this (¶¶ 69-72, supra).
V. 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 of this title, 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.
A. Claims 1-3, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
The prior art of Sato, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claim 1, specifically for the selection of the first 21 direction to be 45° relative to the folding direction/axis in the actual examples in Tables 1 and 2. However, there are other angles between the first 21 and second 22 direction(s), specifically the “particularly preferred” angles of the first direction 21 at 90° and the second direction 22 at 0° relative to the folding direction 20, which is the first direction 21 at 0° and the second direction 22 at 90° relative to the folding axis (Sato: Figs. 2 and 3A-3B; ¶¶ 73-74, supra), that also render claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 3, obvious.
With regard to feature [4] of claim 1 and claims 2 and 3,
[4] wherein, the one of the machine direction and the transverse direction of the optical film having a larger crack strain forms an angle in a range of 15° to 120°
2. The display device of claim 1,
[1] wherein the crack strain of the optical film in the transverse direction is greater than the crack strain in the machine direction, and
[2] wherein the angle between the transverse direction and the folding axis is 90°.
3. The display device of claim 1,
[1] wherein the crack strain of the optical film in the machine direction is greater than the crack strain in the transverse direction, and
[2] wherein the angle between the machine direction and the folding axis is 90°.
It is not clear from Sato which of the first 21 and second 22 direction is the direction having the greatest “crack strain” within the meaning of the Instant Application.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the first direction 21 as the MD or TD, thereby making the second direction 22, the TD or MD, respectively, because Sato suggests this (¶¶ 69-72, supra).
So done, at the “particularly preferred” angles of the folding axis of 0° relative to the first direction 21 and 90° relative to the second direction 22 (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3A-3B), their respective crack strains will correspondingly be at 0° for the first direction 21 and 90° for the second direction 22 relative to said folding axis. As such, whichever of the first 21 and second 22 direction is chosen to be the MD or TD will necessarily have the larger claimed “crack strain” within the meaning of the Instant Application at 90° relative to the folding axis for one of MD and TD, as required by claims 2 and 3.
This is all of the limitations of claims 1-3.
Claim 14 would be obvious for the same reasons as explained above, at the “particularly preferred” angles, explained above.
With regard to claim 15, Sato discloses, generally in Figs. 1-4,
15. A display device [Figs. 1, 4] foldable about a folding axis [Fig. 3B], the display device comprising:
[1] a display panel 11 [Figs. 1, 4];
[2] a cover window 2 on the display panel 11; and
[3a] an optical film 3 on the cover window 2,
[3b] the optical film 3 having a machine direction MD [21 or 22 in Fig. 2] in and a transverse direction TD [22 or 21, respectively in Fig. 2],
[4] wherein an angle between the transverse direction TD and the folding axis is in a range of 15° to 120°.
Again, either of the first 21 and second 22 directions can be the TD because Sato explicitly suggests this (¶¶ 71-72, supra). Therefore, of the two options disclosed in Sato, one will have the transverse direction TD and the folding axis in a range of 45° to 90°, as required by feature [4] of claim 15.
B. Claims 4-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of WO 2024/090540 (“Kataoka”).
All of the text citations to Kataoka are from the attached machine-language translation.
Claims 4 and 19 read,
4. The display device of claim 1, wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer;
[2] a hard coating layer on the base layer;
[3] a low refractive layer on the hard coating layer; and
[4] an anti-fingerprint layer on the low refractive layer.
19. The display device of claim 15, wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer;
[2] a hard coating layer on the base layer;
[3] a low refractive layer on the hard coating layer; and
[4] an anti-fingerprint layer on the low refractive layer.
The prior art of Sato, as explained above, discloses each of the features of claims 1 and 15.
With regard to claims 4 and 19, Sato further discloses,
4(19). The display device of claim 1(15), wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer 3;
[2] a hard coating layer 5 on the base layer 4;
[3] – [4] … [not taught] …
Sato does not show additional layers on the resin layer 3 in the embodiment in Fig. 1 but states that there may be a functional layer, such as “a hard coating layer, an antireflection layer, and an antiglare layer” (¶ 91) can be formed on the resin film 3 including a single layer or “a plurality of layers having functions different from each other” (¶ 92). The embodiment shown in Fig. 4 shows a hard coating layer 5 (¶ 93).
Kataoka teaches an antireflection film, e.g. 10 in Fig. 1, for use on an electroluminescent display (Kataoka: abstract; p. 2, lines 17-19). Like Sato’s resin layer 3 and hard coat layer 5, the antireflection film in Kataoka includes a base layer 12 that may be a transparent polymer (Kataoka: p. 3, lines 4-27) and a hard coat layer 14 directly thereon (Kataoka: p.3, line 38 to p. 6, line 37). The embodiment in Fig. 1 of Kataoka further includes on the hard coat layer 14, sequentially, a low-refractive index layer 16, a primer layer 17, and an “anti-stain” or “antifouling” layer 18 (Kataoka: p. 3, lines 4-11; p. 16, line 1 to p. 18, line 2), including a fluorine-containing component (id.) and has anti-fingerprint properties (Kataoka: p. 19, lines 10-21).
With regard to claims 4-13, 19, and 20, Kataoka teaches,
4. The display device of claim 1, wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer 12;
[2] a hard coating layer 14 on the base layer 12;
[3] a low refractive layer 16 on the hard coating layer 14; and
[4] an anti-fingerprint layer 18 on the low refractive layer 16.
5. The display device of claim 4, wherein the low refractive layer 16 comprises a resin and a plurality of particles dispersed in the resin [p. 6, line 38 to p. 13, line 10].
6. The display device of claim 4, wherein a refractive index of the low refractive layer 16 is in a range of 1.3 to 1.48 [i.e. “not particularly limited as long as it is lower than that of the hard coat layer 14, but is preferably 1.35 or more and 1.52 or less … even more preferably 1.40 or more and 1.49 or less” (p. 13, lines 1-7)].
7. The display device of claim 4, wherein a thickness dLR of the low refractive layer 16 is in a range of 10 nm to 200 nm [i.e. 46 nm to 90 nm more preferably 48 nm to 75 nm (paragraph bridging pp. 11-12)].
8. The display device of claim 4, wherein a refractive index of the low refractive layer 16 [i.e. 1.40 or more and 1.49 (see claim 6)] is smaller than a refractive index of the hard coating layer 14 [i.e. 1.49-1.56 (p. 6, lines 18-20)].
9. The display device of claim 4, further comprising a primer layer 17 between the low refractive layer 16 and the anti-fingerprint layer 18 [p. 11, line 13 to p. 15, line 42].
10. The display device of claim 4, further comprising a high refractive layer 15 between the low refractive layer 16 and the hard coating layer 14 [anti-reflective layer 20 in Fig. 2; p. 19, lines 36 to p. 20, line 17].
11. The display device of claim 10, wherein a refractive index of the high refractive layer is in a range of 1.53 to 1.7 [“More preferably, it is 1.60 or more and 1.70 or less” (p. 20, lines 8-13)].
12. The display device of claim 1, wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer 12;
[2] a hard coating layer 14 on the base layer 12; and
[3] a composite layer 16 on the hard coating layer 14, the composite layer 16 comprising a resin and a plurality of particles and anti-fingerprint material dispersed in the resin [“The low refractive index layer 16 may contain a fluorine-containing compound. Examples of the fluorine-containing compound include (meth)acrylates containing a perfluoroalkyl group, as well as compounds similar to the fluorine-containing (meth)acrylates contained in the antifouling layer 18 described below.” (p. 12. Lines 31-34)].
13. The display device of claim 12,
[1] wherein the particles have a hollow [“The low refractive index layer 16 can be formed using a composition containing inorganic oxide particles, hollow silica particles, and a binder resin.” (p. 12, lines 9-10)], and
[2] wherein the anti-fingerprint material comprises a fluorine-based additive [Again: “The low refractive index layer 16 may contain a fluorine-containing compound. Examples of the fluorine-containing compound include (meth)acrylates containing a perfluoroalkyl group, as well as compounds similar to the fluorine-containing (meth)acrylates contained in the antifouling layer 18 described below.” (p. 12, lines 31-34)].
19. The display device of claim 15, wherein the optical film comprises:
[1] a base layer 12;
[2] a hard coating layer 14 on the base layer 12;
[3] a low refractive layer 16 on the hard coating layer 14; and
[4] an anti-fingerprint layer 18 on the low refractive layer 16.
20. The display device of claim 19, further comprising a primer layer 17 between the low refractive layer 16 and the anti-fingerprint layer 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the antireflection film layers including the hard coat 14, optionally the high-refractive index layer 15, the low refractive index layer 16, the primer layer 17 and the antifouling layer 18 of Kataoka on the resin film 3 of Sato because Sato explicitly states that an antireflection film including a plurality of layers having different functions can be included on the resin film 3 (Sato: ¶ 91-92) but fails to provide the details of the layers, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would use known layers of an antireflection films, such as those taught to be suitable in Kataoka. (See MPEP 2143.)
This is all of the limitations of claims 4-13, 19, and 20.
With regard to claims 16-18, Sato further discloses,
16. The display device of claim 13, wherein the crack strain in the transverse direction TD is greater than the crack strain in the machine direction MD.
17. The display device of claim 13, wherein the angle between the transverse direction and the folding axis is 90°.
18. The display device of claim 13, wherein the crack strain of the optical film in the transverse direction is 2% or more.
See discussion under claims 1-3 and 14, above.
VI. Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0346020 (“Taguchi”) is cited for disclosing at least all of the limitations of claim 1. See the Figure and the associated text, especially paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0015]- [0016], [0071], [0073], [0083]-[0085], [0128], [0139], [0157], [0161], [0168]-[0175], and Table 2 on p. 15.
US 2025/0109264 (“Ogawa”) is cited for disclosing at least all of the limitations of claim 1. See at least paragraphs [0136], [0152], [0155], [0167], [0170], [0183], [0204], and Tables 1 and 2 on pp. 18-19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights