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
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [US2016/0236382, of record, previously cited, “Lee”] in view of Yamazaki et al. [US2011/0244625, of record, previously cited, “Yamazaki”] and Kobayashi [US2003/0044594, newly cited].
Lee disclose a method of manufacturing an electronic device (display panel), the method comprising: forming a cushion layer (protection film 100) directly on a base layer (200) (paragraphs 0069-70); disposing an adhesive member (AM) on another surface of the base layer (paragraphs 0074-78; Figure 7), and attaching the adhesive member (AM) to a surface of an electronic panel (TSP) (paragraphs 0074-78, Figure 7).
Lee fails to disclose surface treating one surface of the base layer where the cushion layer will be applied.
Yamazaki discloses a method of manufacturing. Yamazaki discloses plasma treating a base substrate to introduce hydrophilic groups onto the base substrate and improving the bond strength of the base substrate to the material to be bonded to the base substrate (paragraphs 0050-52).
Lee discloses a cushion layer and in Figure 5 open pores which could be considered to be an uneven surface. Lee does not explicitly disclose the surface as uneven and the simplified Figures do to clearly show an uneven surface.
Kobayashi discloses a foamable thermoplastic layer and provides a clear rationale as to why an uneven foamed surface is advantageous. Kobayashi discloses a foam layer that has an uneven surface that is irregularly formed define concaves and demonstrate excellent cushioning properties (Figure 10, paragraph 0204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee by surface-treating a surface of the base layer as taught by Yamazaki in order to improve the strength of bond between the base substate and the cushion layer, and the modify the method of Lee by including a foam with uneven surface as taught by Kobayashi in order to improve the cushioning properties of the foam layer.
With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses the forming of the cushion layer comprises performing a foaming process (paragraph 0085).
With respect to claim 3, Yamazaki discloses the surface-treating one surface of the base layer comprises performing a plasma treatment (paragraph 0051).
With respect to claim 5, Yamazaki discloses the surface-treating one surface of the base layer comprises hydrophilizing the one surface of the base layer (paragraph 0051).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yamazaki, Kobayashi, and further in view of Loy et al. [US2014/0065389, newly cited, “Loy”].
Lee as modified discloses a method of manufacturing. Applicant is referred to paragraph 3 for a detailed discussion of Lee as modified. Yamazaki discloses the surface-treating one surface of the base layer comprises roughening the one surface of the base layer (etching the surface of the base substrate; paragraph 0052). Yamazaki also discloses the sputtering improves planarization of the surface. Loy discloses a method of etching a surface, wherein Loy discloses an etching process roughens a surface to a micrometer roughness to improve bonding properties, but also minimizes excess roughness that could create high spots (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee to perform a sputtering to produce surface roughness while reducing excessive roughness (planarization or reduction of high spots) as taught by the combination of Yamazaki and Loy, in order to improve the bonding properties of the surface while reducing high spots which could reduce the bonding properties.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Yamazaki, Kobayashi, and further in view of Hirauchi et al. [US2010/0226016, of record, previously cited, “Hirauchi”].
Lee as modified disclose a method of manufacturing an electronic device. Applicant is referred to paragraph 3 for a detailed discussion of Lee as modified. Lee discloses forming layers including an optical member (LF) between the adhesive members (Figure 7), but does not disclose a light-shielding layer.
Hirauchi discloses a method of manufacturing a light-shielding film for use in an optical application on a display device (paragraph 0007). Hirauchi discloses the optical member includes a light-shielding film (paragraph 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lee by including a light-shielding film in the optical member as taught by Hirauchi in order to prevent leaking of light from the sides of the display and improve the appearance of the display.
With respect to claim 7, Hirauchi discloses forming of the light-shielding film by a deposition process (paragraph 0087).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited Kobayashi and Loy.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues the previously cited prior art does not include an uneven surface in the cushion layer. Lee discloses a foamed cushion layer, and newly cited Kobayashi discloses an uneven surface on a foamed layer improves the cushioning properties of the foamed layer.
With respect to claim 4, applicant argues Yamazaki discloses sputtering to improve planarity and does not etch for the purpose of roughening. Newly cited Loy discloses sputtering to achieve a specific amount of roughness that improves bonding properties of the surface as well as reduces excess roughness that would create high spots on the surface.
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 DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/DANIEL MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights