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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Korea on 03/29/2022 and 05/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of either the KR 10-2022-0039105 or the KR 10-2022-0065339 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is noted that the Office’s attempt to retrieve the foreign applications under the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program failed on 10/15/2024. Additional information can be found at the PDX Program website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 and 04/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the limitations reciting “wherein the plurality of coating portions include a second coating portion is stacked on an upper surface of a first coating portion” appear to contain a typographical error. This limitation appears to intend to require that the plurality of coating portions include a first coating portion and a second coating portion, wherein the second coating portion is stacked on an upper surface of the first coating portion, and will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, it is suggested to amend the limitations reciting “wherein a thickness of the first coating portion is relatively thinner in the bending area than in the flat area” to --wherein the first coating portion is thinner in the bending area than in the flat area--, in order to clarify the language of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, it is suggested to amend the units “kpa” to --kPa--, as this limitation appears to intend to refer to kilopascals.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitations reciting “wherein a thickness of the at least one coating layer disposed on the flat area is larger than a thickness of the at least one coating layer disposed on the bending area” because the claim lacks proper antecedent basis for the phrases “the at least one coating layer disposed on the flat area” and “the at least one coating layer disposed on the bending area”.
It is not clear based on the current language of the claims whether these limitations are intended to require that there is a coating layer disposed on the flat area and a separate coating layer disposed on the bending area, or if these limitations are intended to refer to the relative thicknesses of a single coating layer as measured in the flat area vs. in the bending area. In looking to the instant specification (see, e.g., Figs. 8-28), this limitation appears to intend to require that the at least one coating layer is disposed on the flat area and on the bending area, wherein the at least one coating layer has a first thickness in the flat area and a second thickness in the bending area, wherein the first thickness is larger than the second thickness. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, the claims will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation reciting “wherein a first hardness of the first coating portion is less than 30 kpa” and “wherein a second hardness of the second coating portion is larger than or equal to 30 kpa” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the term “hardness” in the context of the claim.
Specifically, it is noted that the term “hardness” in the art of coated windows for display devices typically refers to a pencil hardness (e.g., rated on a scale of 9H to 9B), while the units “kPa” are typically used to report measurements of Young’s modulus (elastic modulus). Examples of the use of such terminology can be found in Park et al. (US 2017/0155084), which discloses elastomer patterns and a hard coating layer having a hardness of about 4B to 5B and 7H to 9H, respectively, and an elastic modulus of about 50 MPa to 100 MPa and 5 GPa to GPa, respectively ([0017]-[0018]). Cho et al. (US 2020/0064886) similarly discloses a first cover portion and a second cover portion having a surface hardness of 9H or greater and 7H or less, respectively, and each having an elastic modulus of 20 GPa to 100 GPa ([0047], [0052], [0056]). It is therefore unclear whether the term “hardness” in the present invention is intended to refer to a surface (pencil) hardness property, or to a tensile modulus or stiffness property. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation reciting “wherein a thickness of the first coating portion is relatively thinner in the bending area than in the flat area” is indefinite because the phrase “the first coating portion” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 16 depends from claim 11, which sets forth that the coating layer includes a plurality of coating portions, but does not provide proper antecedent basis for a first coating portion. It is not clear whether the limitation in claim 16 is intended to require that the plurality of coating portions includes a first coating portion and a second coating portion (similar to the language used in claims 13 and 14), or if the limitation in claim 16 is intended to refer to a relative thickness of the coating layer in the bending area vs. in the flat area. For the purpose of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as being satisfied either by the coating portion having the claimed relative thicknesses, or by a first coating portion within the plurality of coating portions having the claimed relative thicknesses.
Regarding claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-20, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 11.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 102261882, cited on IDS machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a flexible protective sheet (10; window) comprising a substrate layer (11; base layer), an adhesive layer (11a), a substrate coating layer (12), a protective layer (13), and a surface treatment layer (14) ([0038], see Figs. 2a-2b reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The substrate coating layer (12) is applied to the upper surface of the substrate layer (11) and is applied with a hardness of HB to 2H, while the protective layer (13) Is formed with a hardness of H to 7H ([0044], [0054], [0072]). The substrate coating layer and protective layer together correspond to the claimed coating layer which is disposed on a surface of the substrate layer (11; base layer) and which includes a plurality of coating portions having different hardnesses.
Kim teaches that the substrate coating layer is formed to having a relatively thin thickness along a folding line (FOL), where a continuous slope (S) divides the substrate coating layer into a thin portion (i.e., at the bending area) having a second thickness (t2) and a relatively thick portion (i.e., at the flat area) having a first thickness (t1) ([0049]-[0052], Figs. 1, 2b).
Kim further teaches that the flexible protective sheet (10) may be adhered to the display window of a terminal device (display device, display panel) capable of folding, e.g., a smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc. ([0003], [0033], [0040], Fig. 1).
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. (US 2020/0310494).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ahn et al. teaches an electronic device (10) including a foldable housing (500; bendable housing) and a flexible, foldable, or deformable display (100; flexible display, display device) that is disposed in a space formed by the foldable housing ([0062], Figs. 3A-3B). The display (100) comprises a display panel (4010), a first adhesive (4020), a shatterproof coating (SPC) (4060), a first window (4030), a second adhesive (4040), and a second window (4050; protective layer) ([0105], see Fig. 9 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first adhesive (4020), shatterproof coating (4060), and first window (4030) together correspond to the claimed window, where the first window corresponds to the claimed base layer, while the first adhesive and shatterproof coating together correspond to the claimed at least one coating layer disposed on a surface of the base layer. As shown in Figs. 3A and 8, the display (100) and the first window (4030) each have a folding region (101; bending area) disposed between first and second regions (101, 102; flat areas) ([0077], [0195]).
The first window may include a groove or recess (810) formed in at least a part of the folding region (103) thereof ([0196], Figs. 8-9). The shatterproof coating (4060) is filled in a portion of the first window having a different thickness due to the groove ([0247]), however, as shown in Fig. 9, the thickness of the shatterproof coating in the folding region (i.e., in the region of the groove (810)) is less than the thickness of the shatterproof coating at the outer peripheral edges of the display (i.e., at side surfaces (4030c) of the first window). The thickness of the coating layer is therefore larger in the flat area than in the bending area.
Ahn et al. further teaches that the shatterproof coating may comprise a material including polysiloxane, an acrylate compound, and a photopolymerization initiator, while the first adhesive includes an optical clear adhesive (OCA), an optical clear resin (OCR), a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA), or the like ([0113], [0121], [0188]). The shatterproof coating and first adhesive therefore correspond to the claimed plurality of coating portions having different hardnesses.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12, and 16, Ahn et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above and further teaches that the first window (4030; base layer) may include ultra thin glass (UTG) [0108].
As shown in Fig. 9 above, the shatterproof coating (4060; first coating portion) is stacked on a surface (upper surface) of the first adhesive (4020; second coating portion) facing the display panel (4010), and one surface of the shatterproof coating contacts a surface of the first window, while another surface of the shatterproof coating contacts a surface of the first adhesive. A thickness of the shatterproof coating is thinner at the groove (810) (in the bending area) than at the side surfaces (4030c) of the first window (in the flat area) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Ahn et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above and further teaches that a refractive index of the shatterproof coating (SPC) may be substantially identical to the second window ([0277]), wherein the second window (4050; refractive index matching part) is disposed on an upper surface of the SPC, thus on an outer surface of the coating layer.
Regarding claim 19, Ahn et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above and further teaches a variety of different embodiments for the shape of the groove (810), wherein in certain embodiments, the shatterproof coating (4060) is disposed in a grooved shape at a position corresponding to the folding region (103; bending area) ([0203], Figs. 9, 10, 11C).
Regarding claim 20, Ahn et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above and further teaches that the first window (4030; base layer) may include polyimide (PI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PU), cellulose triacetate (TAC), ultra thin glass (UTG), or the like [0108].
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2021/0136908).
Regarding claim 1, Seo et al. teaches a display device (DD) comprising a window (WM), a display module (DM; display panel), and an adhesive layer (AM) ([0082], Figs. 2A-2B). The window defines a first flat area (NBA1), a second flat area (NBA2), a first bending area (BA1), and a second bending area (BA2) ([0133], Figs. 5, 6A-7C). The window comprises a base layer (WM-BL), a coating layer (WM-HCL), and an auxiliary coating layer (WM-AL) ([0121], see Fig. 6A reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
323
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The coating layer (WM-HCL) may increase an overall rigidity of the window and may include an organic compound such as an acrylic-based or epoxy-based compound, while the auxiliary coating layer (WM-AL) may include an anti-finger coating layer, an anti-reflection coating layer, and an anti-glare coating layer ([0123], [0127]). The coating layer (WM-HCL) and auxiliary coating layer (WM-AL) therefore together correspond to the claimed coating layer which includes a plurality of coating portions having different hardnesses, and wherein a thickness of the coating layer disposed on the first flat area (NB1) is larger than a thickness of the coating layer disposed on the bending area (BA1 or BA2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2021/0136908) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heo et al. (US 2022/0035409, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Seo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As explained above, the plurality of coating portions include a coating layer (WM-HCL; first coating portion) and an auxiliary coating layer (WM-AL; second coating portion), wherein the auxiliary coating layer (WM-AL) is stacked on an upper surface of the coating layer (WM-HCL) in the first flat area (NBA1) ([0143], Fig. 6A). As shown in Fig. 6A, one surface of the coating layer (WM-HCL) contacts a surface of the base layer (WM-BL), while another surface of the coating layer contacts a surface of the auxiliary coating layer.
Although Seo et al. teaches that the base layer (WM-BL) may include a transparent plastic film such as an acrylic-based resin, methacrylic-based resin, polyisoprene, vinyl-based resin, polyimide-based resin, or the like ([0122]), the reference does not expressly teach that the base layer comprises a flexible thin glass (FTG).
Heo et al. teaches a display device (DD) comprising a display module (DM) and a window (WM) disposed on the display module, wherein the window includes an optically transparent insulation material such that an image generated by the display module can be easily recognized through the window ([0074], [0079], Fig. 4). Heo et al. teaches that the window may include a glass substrate or a synthetic resin film as a base layer, wherein the glass substrate may be a thin-film glass (flexible thin glass), while the synthetic resin film may include polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate ([0080]-[0081]). Heo et al. teaches that the window serves to transmit an image from the display module and to mitigate an external impact, preventing the display module from being damaged [0082]. Similar to Seo et al., Heo et al. taches that the display device, including the window, may be folded with respect to a folding axis (FX) ([0049], Figs. 1-4).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Seo et al. by substituting the transparent plastic film (e.g., polyimide-based film) for a thin-film glass base layer, given the art-recognized equivalence of such materials for use as base films in windows of flexible display devices. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 3, Seo et al. in view of Heo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. As shown in Fig. 6A of Seo et al., a thickness (WH2a) of the coating layer (WM-HCL) in the bending area (BA1) is smaller than a thickness (WH1a or WH1b) of the coating layer in the non-bending area (NBA1; flat area).
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0287213) in view of Jung et al. (US 2017/0064845).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lee et al. teaches a display device (100; electronic device) comprising a display panel (10) for displaying an image, a housing (40) accommodating the display panel, and a cover window (20) positioned in front of the display panel to protect the display panel ([0040], Fig. 1). Lee et al. teaches that the display device (100) may be bent along the line A-A ([0053]), indicating that the housing is bendable and is configured to facilitate bending along a bending axis.
Lee et al. teaches that the cover window (20) may be attached to the display panel by means of a bonding layer, wherein the cover window includes a base film (21; base layer) and a coating layer (22) formed on the base film ([0048], Fig. 2). The coating layer includes first regions (D1; flat area) and a second region (D2; bending area) between the two first regions, wherein the second region is more flexible and is able to be bent more easily than the first regions [0055]. In particular, the first regions (D1) of the coating layer are configured as hard members (221), while the second region (D2) is configured as a soft member (222) ([0056], Fig. 2). The hard member may be made of a material having a higher degree of hardness than that of the soft member [0057]. The coating layer taught by Lee et al. therefore includes a plurality of coating portions having different hardnesses.
Lee et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that a thickness of the coating layer (22) disposed in the first region (D1) is larger than a thickness of the coating layer disposed in the second region (D2).
Jung et al. teaches a similar cover window (100) included in a flexible display device, wherein the cover window comprises a base substrate (120), a first hard coating layer (140), and a second hard coating layer (160) ([0059], Figs. 1A-1B). The second hard coating layer includes first areas (A1) overlapping with or corresponding to folding areas (FA) of the display, and second areas (A2) overlapping with or corresponding to peripheral areas [0065]. Jung et al. teaches that the bending stress may be concentrated in the folding areas (FA) when the cover window is folded, wherein the thickness (t3) of the first area (A1) corresponding to the folding area may be less than the thickness (t2) of the second area (A2) such that the folding stress on the folding area may be reduced ([0092], Figs. 1A, 3-7).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Lee et al. by forming the coating layer (22) such that a thickness of the first region (D1; flat area) is greater than a thickness of the second region (D2; bending area), as taught by Jung et al., in order to reduce the folding stress on the second region when the cover window is folded.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. As noted above, Lee et al. teaches that the coating layer (22) includes a soft member (222; first coating portion) disposed in the second region (D2; bending area) and a hard member (221; second coating portion) disposed in the first region (D1; flat area) ([0056], Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, a portion of a side surface of the soft member and a portion of a side surface of the hard member contact each other.
Although Lee et al. teaches that the base film (21) includes a transparent part (211) that allows the underlying display unit (11) to be externally visible, wherein the base film may be made of, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polycarbonate (PC), or the like ([0050]), the reference does not expressly teach that the base film comprises a flexible thin glass (FTG).
However, Jung et al. further teaches that the base substrate (120; base layer) may include a transparent plastic film or a thin glass film (flexible thin glass), wherein the plastic film may include polycarbonate (PC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or polyimide (PI) [0062].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Lee et al. by substituting the transparent plastic film in the base layer for a flexible thin glass, given the art-recognized equivalence of such materials for use as base films in coated windows of flexible display devices. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. As noted above, Lee et al. teaches that the coating layer (22) includes a soft member (222; first coating portion) disposed in the second region (D2; bending area) and a hard member (221; second coating portion) disposed in the first region (D1; flat area) ([0056], Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, the hard member is disposed to cover an upper surface of the base film (21) and a periphery of the soft member.
Although Lee et al. teaches that the base film (21) includes a transparent part (211) that allows the underlying display unit (11) to be externally visible, wherein the base film may be made of, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polycarbonate (PC), or the like ([0050]), the reference does not expressly teach that the base film comprises a flexible thin glass (FTG).
However, Jung et al. further teaches that the base substrate (120; base layer) may include a transparent plastic film or a thin glass film (flexible thin glass), wherein the plastic film may include polycarbonate (PC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or polyimide (PI) [0062].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Lee et al. by substituting the transparent plastic film in the base layer for a flexible thin glass, given the art-recognized equivalence of such materials for use as base films in coated windows of flexible display devices. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Lee et al. teaches that the base film (21) includes a transparent part (211) that allows the underlying display unit (11) to be externally visible, wherein the base film may be made of, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polycarbonate (PC), or the like ([0050]), the reference does not expressly teach that the base film comprises a flexible thin glass (FTG).
However, Jung et al. further teaches that the base substrate (120; base layer) may include a transparent plastic film or a thin glass film (flexible thin glass), wherein the plastic film may include polycarbonate (PC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or polyimide (PI) [0062].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Lee et al. by substituting the transparent plastic film in the base layer for a flexible thin glass, given the art-recognized equivalence of such materials for use as base films in coated windows of flexible display devices. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Lee et al. also differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a thickness of the coating layer in the bending area, or that a thickness of the coating layer decreases toward an edge from a side portion of the bending area not in contact with the flat area.
However, Jung et al. further teaches that a thickness (t3) of the hard coating (160) in the first area (A1) may be about 20% to about 80% of the thickness (t2) of the hard coating in the second area (A2), where the thickness (t3) is less than the thickness (t2) so that the bending stress which is concentrated in the folding area when the cover window is folded can be reduced ([0091]-[0092], Fig. 1A). Jung et al. further teaches that a tensile modulus and hardness may be decreased when the cover window has a thin thickness [0185].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer in the bending area through routine experimentation, especially given the teachings in Jung et al. regarding the desire to reduce tensile stress while maintaining tensile modulus and hardness. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Furthermore, based on the teachings of Jung et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the thickness of the coating layer in areas where excessive bending stress occurs when the display device is folded, such as in an edge area extending from a side portion of the bending area not in contact with the flat area. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the coating layer in such areas in order to prevent excessive concentration of bending stress.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Lee et al. teaches that the first regions (D1) of the coating layer (22) are configured as hard members (221; second coating portion), while the second region (D2) is configured as a soft member (222; first coating portion), wherein the hard member may be made of a material having a higher degree of hardness than that of the soft member ([0056]-[0057], Fig. 2). Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach values for the first and second hardness of the hard and soft members.
However, Lee et al. does further teach that by including portions of the coating layer having different degrees of hardness on the base film, the base film can be bent and have more than a certain degree of surface hardness, where the regions containing hard members serve to protect the display panels, while the regions containing the soft member serves to facilitate bending of the display panel ([0055], [0058]). Lee et al. further teaches that the same material is coated to form the coating layer, and the first and second regions (D1, D2) are cured under different conditions in order to obtain regions having different degrees of hardness [0066].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the first and second hardnesses of the hard and soft members through routine experimentation, especially given the teachings in Lee et al. regarding the desire to impart bendability to the display device at the second region (D2) via the soft member (222) and to impart surface hardness to the display device at the first regions (D1) via the hard members. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. As explained above, Jung et al. teaches a hard coating formed to have a thickness (t3) in a first area (A1) corresponding to the folding area (FA), where the thickness (t3) is less than a thickness (t1) in a second area (A2) [0065]. Thus, the thickness of the coating layer is thinner in the first area (A1; bending area) than in the second area (A2; flat area). Furthermore, as shown in Figs. 1A and 3-7 of Jung et al., the coating layer is disposed in a grooved shape in the first area (A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above, and Lee et al. further teaches that the base film may be made of, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polycarbonate (PC), or the like (synthetic resin film) [0050].
Claims 5, 6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0287213) in view of Jung et al. (US 2017/0064845) as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0107251).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 17, and 18, Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 11 above. Although Lee et al. teaches that side surfaces of the soft member (222; first coating portion) and the hard member (221; second coating portion) contact each other (Fig. 2), the reference does not expressly teach that either of the soft or hard members include a protrusion or a groove as claimed.
Chen et al. teaches a foldable apparatus (601) which is foldable about a fold axis (102), and which comprises a display device (603), an adhesive layer (507), first and second portions (221, 231; second coating portion), and a polymer-based portion (241; second coating portion) positioned between the first and second portions ([0220]-[0221], [0254], Figs. 1, 2, 6). Similar to Lee et al., Chen et al. teaches that the first and second portions can comprise a rigid polymer, while the elastic modulus of the polymer-based portion is less than that of the first and second portions ([0226], [0242], [0262]).
Chen et al. teaches that first and second edge surfaces of the first and second portions can comprise a blunted edge surface, which can minimize stress concentrations and reduce the incidence of adhesion-based failure (e.g., delamination) at an interface between the first and second portions and the polymer-based portion ([0006], [0009], [0239]). In particular, in the embodiment of Fig. 6, the blunted edge surface can comprise a compound edge surface profile including a chamfered profile and a curved profile [0236]. First and second edge surfaces of the first and second portions (221, 231) each comprise an upper portion (603a, 604a) having a curvilinear profile, which corresponds to the claimed protrusion disposed on the side surface of the second coating portion which is inserted into a corresponding groove in the polymer-based portion (241), as recited in claims 6 and 18. First and second edge surface of the first and second portions (221, 231) further comprise a lower portion (603b, 604b) having a chamfered profile (606), in which the polymer-based portion is disposed, which corresponds to the claimed groove disposed to allow the protrusion on the side surface of the polymer-based portion (241; first coating portion) to be inserted into the side surface of the first and second portions (221, 231), as recited in claims 5 and 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. by forming the first and second coating portions to have edge surface profiles as taught by Chen et al., in which each of the contacting side edges of the first and second coating portions includes a corresponding protrusion and groove as claimed, in order to minimize stress concentrations and reduce the incidence of adhesion-based failure (e.g., delamination) at an interface between the first and second coating portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nam et al. (US 2015/0147532) teaches a window member (WM) comprising a first base layer (BL1; base layer) and a second base layer (BL2; second coating portion) attached to each other by an adhesive layer (AL1; first coating portion), where the thickness of the second base layer (BL2) is greater in the peripheral areas (SA1, SA2; flat area) than in the folding area (FA; bending area) ([0037]-[0038], Figs. 2A-2B).
Choi et al. (US 2021/0379869) teaches a window (WM) including a glass substrate (GL; base layer), an impact absorbing layer (AL; second coating portion) located below the glass substrate, and a coating layer (TCL; first coating portion) located between the impact absorbing layer and the glass substrate, where the coating layer comprises first and second parts (TCL-a, TCL-b) spaced apart from each other in the folding area (W-FA) by an empty space (ES) to increase the folding property ([0075], [0089], Fig. 5A). The thickness of the coating layer is therefore greater in the non-folding areas (W-NFA1, W-NFA2; flat area) than in the folding area (W-FA; bending area).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785