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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on 24 July 2026 (“Response”) is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. (See MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-16 and claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being respectively drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Although not indicated in the Response, Counsel subsequently confirmed the election of Species A1 and B2 in a voice message left on 3 August 2026.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are examined on the merits below.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites that the first stress-releasing holes correspond to the second stress-releasing holes, respectively. This recitation is indefinite, as it is not clear if the relationship is at the level of respective population of holes, or if it is at the level of one hole of one population to one hole of another population. For prior art rejection below, the former (and broader) interpretation is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)/(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. 2024/0138233 A1 (“Nam”).
Considering claim 1, Nam discloses a substrate BS2 (a support plate) located under a non-light emitting side of a display panel, wherein located underneath BS2 is a barrier layer that prevents moisture penetration. (Nam ¶¶ 0197-0201 and Fig. 20).
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2024/029766 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication, U.S. 2025/0165037 A1, “An”).
Considering claim 1, An discloses a series of structures placed under a display panel 430 of a display, the series of structures including a support plate 450 comprising CFRP and having a plurality of apertures 4531, a pair of reinforcing plates 561 and 562 located under the support plate 450, and an apertured protective layer 610 located under the pair of reinforcing plates 561 and 562. (An ¶¶ 0045, 0065-0067, and 0105; and Figs. 6 and 9A, latter reproduced infra). In particular, An discloses that the protective layer 610 serves to block moisture. (Id. ¶¶ 0111-0113).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An thus anticipates claim 1.
Considering claim 11, An specifically discloses usage of CFRP as the preferred material constituting the rigid support plate 450 in certain situations. (Id. ¶ 0107). As such, usage of CFRP is considered to be disclosed with sufficient specificity. CFRP (whether overall or in terms of just the fibers per se) is noted to possess the claimed properties.
Considering claim 12, as “correspond” does not necessarily entail an one-to-one relationship at a hole to hole level, the plurality of holes in layer 610 correspond to the apertures 4531 in a symmetrical manner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2009/0110896 A1 (“Kuramachi”).
Considering claims 2-5, An discloses its protective layer 610 used to block moisture to be made of an insulating material. (An ¶ 0112). However, An does not disclose specifics re: this insulating material.
Kuramachi teaches a gas barrier film that resists permeation of water and oxygen, the gas barrier film has organic layers alternating with inorganic layers, wherein the gas barrier film exhibits WVTR not exceeding 10-6 g/m2/day. (Kuramachi ¶¶ 0059-0064 and 0092; and Fig. 5). Kuramachi is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (barrier films that prevent permeation of water and oxygen). Kuramachi teaches that each inorganic layer has thickness of 100 nm. (Id. ¶ 0049). Although modulus for the inorganic layer is not taught, it is noted such inorganic layers typically have modulus less than 20 GPa. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05). Kuramachi further teaches that an adhesion-promoting layer may be included between a substrate and a lowest layer of its gas barrier film. (Kuramachi ¶ 0067).
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used the gas barrier film of Kuramachi for the protective layer of An, for the various barrier properties exhibited.
Considering claim 4, each organic layer has thickness of 0.3 to 2 µm. (Kuramachi ¶ 0077). As Kuramachi teaches presence of at least one organic layer, a gas barrier film having at least 5 such layers overlap the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2023/048259 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication U.S. 2025/0011577 A1, “Yoshida”).
Considering claims 9 and 10, although An discloses usage of CFRP, An does not teach specific composition of its CFRP material.
Yoshida teaches a CFRP having a composite resinous matrix, the composite resinous matrix including both epoxy resin and PVA resins, wherein carbon fibers are contained at 55 to 3,685 parts relative to 100 parts by weight epoxy, and wherein PVA is contained at 0.01 to 40 parts relative to 100 parts by weight epoxy. (Yoshida abs. and ¶¶ 0084 and 0112). Yoshida further teaches that the composite resinous matrix includes curing agent at 0.5 to 50 parts relative to 100 parts of epoxy resin, curing accelerator at 0.1 to 50 parts relative to 100 parts epoxy resin, and antioxidant. (Id. ¶¶ 0127-0132, 0135, 0144). Yoshida is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (CFRP material). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to have used the CFRP of Yoshida for the CFRP of An, as Yoshida teaches that the inclusion of PVA improves bonding between epoxy and carbon fibers. (Id. ¶ 0026). This reads on claim 9.
In specific examples, the carbon fiber, epoxy resin, curing agent, and PVA respectively account for ~72 wt%, ~24 wt%, ~2.5 wt%, and ~1.4 wt% of the CFRP. (Id. Table 2). It is clear from the broader teachings of Yoshida that when a curing accelerator is included, its content would fall within the claimed range. Furthermore, antioxidant is included for a specific purpose, and the amount included is thus result effective. Silence of a reference on a quantitative limitation when the reference discloses the general characteristic is not deemed to support patentability unless there is evidence indicating such quantitative limitation is critical. “[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”. (MPEP 2144.05 II.A). The teachings of Yoshida thus render obvious the mass proportions recited in claim 10.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights