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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2023-0141000 filed on 09/16/2024. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0141000 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
Applicant has not yet complied with one or more conditions to actually be entitled to benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2023-0141000 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2023-0141000 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the functional layer has a pencil hardness of about 6H or more” which cover a range up to infinity. However, the specification does not provide any description of an infinity hardness. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 5 was not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
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, 4-9, 11-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US Pub. 20160280873) in view of Chien et al. (US Pub. 20230261156).
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 a display device comprising:
a display panel [10][paragraph [0082]];
a coating window [21] disposed on the display panel [10][paragraph [0040]]; and
a functional layer [22A] disposed on the coating window [21] and formed from a thermosetting coating solution [paragraph [0043]].
Nam fails to disclose
wherein the functional layer includes an ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer, and
wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material.
Chien et al. discloses in paragraphs [0042]-[0045], [0057], [0070], [0077]
a functional layer formed from a thermosetting coating solution includes an ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer, and
wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material [2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-4,6-bis(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl)-1,3,5-triazine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chien et al. into the method of Nam to include wherein the functional layer includes an ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer, and wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam in the above manner for the purpose of preventing the functional layer formed from the thermosetting coating solution from being degraded by UV light [paragraphs [0043], [0045], [0077] of Chien et al.].
Regarding claim 4 and claim 15, Chien et al. discloses in paragraph [0057]
wherein the UV absorber comprises at least one of a stilbene-based derivative, a phenylenevinylene-based derivative, a benzoxazole-based derivative, a benzotriazole-based derivative, a benzophenone-based derivative, or a triazine-based derivative [a triazine-based derivative].
Regarding claims 5-7, the combination of Nam and Chien et al. discloses the functional layer including an organic ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer as claimed. Therefore, the functional layer disclosed by Nam and Chien et al. would have the claimed properties of “the functional layer has a pencil hardness of about 6H or more; “the functional layer has a yellow index of about 1 or less”; and “the functional layer has a transmittance of about 90% or more with respect to light having a visible light wavelength range”.
Nam further discloses in paragraph [0057], [0095], [0100], [0104] a functional layer may provide a predetermined hardness greater than 6H and reduce yellowing phenomenon to improve reliability and durability of the cover window. In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to modify Nam and Chien et al. to provide the functional layer has a pencil hardness of about 6H or more; the functional layer has a yellow index of about 1 or less; and the functional layer has a transmittance of about 90% or more with respect to light having a visible light wavelength range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam and Chien et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide an functional layer having desired properties to protect and improve reliability and durability of the display device. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 8, Nam discloses in Fig. 1
wherein the functional layer [22A] is a single layer.
Regarding claim 9 and claim 12, Nam discloses in Fig. 1
wherein the functional layer [22A] is directly disposed on the coating window [21];
wherein the thermosetting coating solution [22A] is directly disposed on the coating window [21].
Regarding claim 11, Nam discloses in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 a method for manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
preparing a display panel [10][paragraph [0082]];
forming a coating window [21] on the display panel [10][paragraph [0040]]; and
forming a functional layer [22A] by disposing a thermosetting coating solution on the coating window [21][paragraph [0043]].
Nam fails to disclose
wherein the thermosetting coating solution includes a UV absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total weight of the thermosetting coating solution, and wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material.
Chien et al. discloses in paragraphs [0042]-[0045], [0057], [0070], [0077]
a thermosetting coating solution includes an ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer, and wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material [2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-4,6-bis(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl)-1,3,5-triazine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chien et al. into the method of Nam to include wherein the thermosetting coating solution includes an ultraviolet (UV) absorber in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the functional layer, and wherein the UV absorber includes an organic material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam in the above manner for the purpose of preventing the functional layer formed from the thermosetting coating solution from being degraded by UV light [paragraphs [0043], [0045], [0077] of Chien et al.].
Regarding claims 16-17, Nam discloses in paragraph [0043], [0050]-[0051], [0077]
wherein the forming of the functional layer [22A] comprises:
forming a preliminary functional layer by disposing the thermosetting coating solution on the coating window [21]; and
forming the functional layer [22A] by curing the preliminary functional layer.
Nam fails to disclose
wherein the curing of the preliminary functional layer is performed at a temperature range of about 20°C to about 80°C;
wherein in the forming of the preliminary functional layer, a curing rate is about 90% or more.
However, Nam discloses “a reaction speed to light or heat may be appropriately adjusted.” In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Nam and Chien et al. to provide wherein the curing of the preliminary functional layer is performed at a temperature range of about 20°C to about 80°C; wherein in the forming of the preliminary functional layer, a curing rate is about 90% or more for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to provide optimal process parameters for forming a functional layer. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 18, Nam et al. fails to disclose
wherein the thermosetting coating solution is provided through roll coating, silk screen coating, spray coating, or slit coating.
However, roll coating, silk screen coating, spray coating, or slit coating are known method for applying a coating solution and therefore it would have been obvious to select them based on their suitability for use as suitable method for applying the thermosetting coating solution on the coating window. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 2-3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US Pub. 20160280873) in view of Chien et al. (US Pub. 20230261156) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Uchida et al. (US Pub. 20090054577).
Regarding claims 2-3, Nam discloses in paragraph [0041], [0043], [0046]
wherein the functional layer [22A] further comprises a base resin [an organic hybrid resin, an inorganic hybrid resin, and/or an acryl resin];
wherein the base resin comprises an acryl-based resin [acryl resin].
Chien et al. also discloses in paragraphs [0042]-[0045], [0057], [0070], [0077]
wherein the functional layer further comprises a base resin.
Nam and Chien et al. fails to disclose
the functional layer further comprises a fluorine-containing compound.
Uchida et al. discloses in paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0011]
a functional layer formed from a thermosetting coating solution further comprises a fluorine-containing compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Uchida et al. into the method of Nam and Chien et al. to include the functional layer further comprises a fluorine-containing compound. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam and Chien et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a thermosetting resin composition for overcoating, excellent in antifoaming property and leveling property at the time of printing without using a silicone defoaming agent, and also excellent in adhesion, warpage resistance [paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0011] of Uchida et al.].
Regarding claims 13-14, Nam discloses in paragraph [0041], [0043], [0046]
wherein the thermosetting coating solution [22A] further comprises a base resin [an organic hybrid resin, an inorganic hybrid resin, and/or an acryl resin];
wherein the base resin comprises an acryl-based resin [acryl resin].
Chien et al. also discloses in paragraphs [0042]-[0045], [0057], [0070], [0077]
wherein the thermosetting coating solution further comprises a base resin.
Nam and Chien et al. fails to disclose
the thermosetting coating solution further comprises a fluorine-containing compound.
Uchida et al. discloses in paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0011]
a thermosetting coating solution further comprises a fluorine-containing compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Uchida et al. into the method of Nam and Chien et al. to include the thermosetting coating solution further comprises a fluorine-containing compound. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam and Chien et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a thermosetting resin composition for overcoating, excellent in antifoaming property and leveling property at the time of printing without using a silicone defoaming agent, and also excellent in adhesion, warpage resistance [paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0011] of Uchida et al.].
Claims 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US Pub. 20160280873) in view of Chien et al. (US Pub. 20230261156) as applied to claim 1 and claim 11 above and further in view of Oh et al. (US Pub. 20180248150).
Regarding claim 10, Nam fails to disclose
wherein the coating window comprises an epoxy-based resin.
Oh et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0062]
wherein the coating window [WL] comprises an epoxy-based resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oh et al. into the method of Nam to include wherein the coating window comprises an epoxy-based resin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the coating window [paragraph [0062] of Oh et al.].
Regarding claims 19-20, Nam fails to disclose
wherein the coating window is formed by disposing a coating composition on the display panel;
wherein the coating composition comprises an epoxy-based resin.
Oh et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0062], [0064]
wherein the coating window [WL] is formed by disposing a coating composition on the display panel [DP];
wherein the coating composition comprises an epoxy-based resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oh et al. into the method of Nam to include wherein the coating window is formed by disposing a coating composition on the display panel; wherein the coating composition comprises an epoxy-based resin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nam in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable method for directly forming the coating window on an upper surface of the display panel without providing any adhesion layer between the coating window and the display panel and providing suitable material of the coating window [paragraph [0062], [0064] of Oh et al.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights