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). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 12 December 2024.
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) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0237399 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a display device (ref. #40; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "composite film body") comprising a glass article (ref. #10) as a cover window, an optically-clear bonding layer (ref. #30), and a display panel (ref. #20), wherein a protective film body (ref. "PF" and #1) is disposed on the glass article, and wherein the PF can include a base film (ref. #100; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "first protective portion"), a dummy film (ref. #400; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "second protective portion"), an adhesive film layer (ref. #200), and a release film (ref. #300) (figures 2 to 6, 8, 9, 16 to 21, [0042]-[0044], and [0050]-[0053] of Lee). (In the instant case, the portions of the composite film body ("display device") situated directly below the first protective portion ("base film") is considered to be the claimed "first sub-portion", whereas the portions of the composite film body situated directly below the second protective portion ("dummy film") are considered to be the claimed "second sub-portion".)
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0174823 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kim teaches a display device comprising a cover layer (ref. "CL1") attached to a first support layer (ref. "PLT1"), wherein the first support layer comprises an integrated protective portion (ref. "PLT-F") overlapping a folding area (ref. "FA0") and comprising openings (ref. "OP") (figures 4B, 4D, [0005], and [0133]-[0140] of Kim). (In the instant case the portions of the cover layer in the folding area correspond to the second sub-portion.)
Regarding Claim 7: Kim teaches that the second protective portion is connected to the first protective portion; and the second protective portion comprises a first division spaced apart from the first protective portion, and at least one second division connecting the first division to the first protective portion (figures 4B and 4D of Kim). (In the instant case the second division corresponds to the portions of the PTF1 between the OP.)
Regarding Claim 8: Kim teaches that the second protective portion is connected to the first protective portion, and the first protective portion and the second protective portion form an integral structure (figures 4B and 4D of Kim).
Regarding Claim 9: Kim teaches that the at least one second division comprises a plurality of second divisions arranged at intervals along an outer peripheral edge of the first protective portion (figures 4B and 4D of Kim).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0174823 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2022/0228722 A1).
Kim is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 20: Kim discloses a display module, comprising a display screen, and the composite film structure, wherein the composite film body is disposed on a side of the display screen, and the first protective layer is disposed on a side of the composite film body away from the display screen (figures 1A to 3A, [0098], and [0099] of Kim).
Kim fails to disclose --a display screen with a light-emitting surface and a backlight surface opposite to each other, and wherein the composite film body is disposed on a side of the display screen where the backlight surface is provided--.
Nishikawa discloses a display apparatus comprising a display panel and an LED backlight disposed on the rear side of the display panel ([0024] of Nishikawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the display apparatus of Nishikawa as the display screen of the display module disclosed by Kim in order to have --a display screen with a light-emitting surface and a backlight surface opposite to each other, and wherein the composite film body is disposed on a side of the display screen where the backlight surface is provided--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the display apparatus of Nishikawa as the display screen of the display module disclosed by Kim, from the stand-point of having an liquid crystal display with an LED backlight as the light source ([0002] of Nishikawa).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Claims 2-6 and 10-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Lee et al. (US 2021/0237399 A1): Lee teaches --a composite film structure--, wherein Lee's composite film structure further comprises --a display device (ref. #40) comprising a glass article (ref. #10) as a cover window, an optically-clear bonding layer (ref. #30), and a display panel (ref. #20), wherein a protective film body (ref. "PF" and #1) is disposed on the glass article, and wherein the PF can include a base film (ref. #100), a dummy film (ref. #400; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "second protective portion"), an adhesive film layer (ref. #200), and a release film (ref. #300)-- (figures 2 to 6, 8, 9, 16 to 21, [0042]-[0044], and [0050]-[0053] of Lee). However, Lee does not teach that --a second protective layer disposed on a side of the composite film body away from the first protective layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the second protective layer on the first protective layer overlaps with the orthographic projection of the second sub-portion on the first protective layer-- {instant claim 2}, --the second protective portion is connected to the first protective portion; and the second protective portion comprises a first division spaced apart from the first protective portion, and at least one second division connecting the first division to the first protective portion-- {instant claim 7}, --the second protective portion is connected to the first protective portion, and the first protective portion and the second protective portion form an integral structure-- {instant claim 8}, --the composite film body further comprises a cushion layer and a support layer stacked sequentially in a direction towards the first protective layer; and an orthographic projection of at least one of the support layer or the cushion layer on the first protective layer overlaps with the second protective portion-- {instant claim 10}, or --the first protective portion and the second protective portion being detachably connected to each other-- {instant claim 17}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Lee with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Lee in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Kim et al. (US 2022/0174823 A1): Kim teaches --a composite film structure--, wherein Kim's composite film structure further comprises --a display device comprising a cover layer (ref. "CL1") attached to a first support layer (ref. "PLT1"), wherein the first support layer comprises an integrated protective portion (ref. "PLT-F") overlapping a folding area (ref. "FA0") and comprising openings (ref. "OP")-- (figures 4B, 4D, [0005], and [0133]-[0140] of Kim). However, [ Prior Art ] does not teach that --a second protective layer disposed on a side of the composite film body away from the first protective layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the second protective layer on the first protective layer overlaps with the orthographic projection of the second sub-portion on the first protective layer-- {instant claim 2}, --the composite film body further comprises a cushion layer and a support layer stacked sequentially in a direction towards the first protective layer; and an orthographic projection of at least one of the support layer or the cushion layer on the first protective layer overlaps with the second protective portion-- {instant claim 10}, or --the first protective portion and the second protective portion being detachably connected to each other-- {instant claim 17}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Kim with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Kim in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
