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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 05/19/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0087] sets forth an embodiment in which the resin composition includes two urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers, stating that the weight ratio of the two urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers may be about 1:1 to about 2:1 with respect to the total weight of the resin composition. It is not clear, however, whether this disclosure is intended to mean that the weight ratio between the two urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers is about 1:1 to about 2:1 (i.e., ratio between oligomer A and oligomer B), or if this disclosure is intended to refer to a weight ratio between the total weight of the two urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers and the total weight of the resin composition. In the latter case, it is not clear how the total weight of the oligomers can be up to 2x greater than the weight of the resin composition if the oligomers are part of the resin composition itself. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
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 1-8 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 claim 1, the limitation in lines 10-12 reciting “when the resin composition includes one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, the one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer is included in 10 wt% or more with respect to a total weight of the resin composition” is indefinite in light of the limitation reciting that the resin composition “includes…at least one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer”.
In particular, it is not clear whether the conditional limitation in lines 10-12 is intended to limit the claim only under the condition that the resin composition includes one (i.e., only one) urethane (meth)acrylate copolymer, or if this limitation must be satisfied when the resin composition includes one (i.e., at least one) urethane (meth)acrylate copolymer. In other words, it is not clear whether the clause in lines 10-12 limiting the amount of the one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer applies when there is more than one oligomer present, meaning that a single one of the plural oligomers must be included at an amount of 10 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the resin composition, or if the clause in lines 10-12 only applies when there is only one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer present in the resin composition.
Paragraph [0086] of the as-filed specification discloses an embodiment in which the resin composition includes one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, wherein the oligomer may be included in an amount of 10 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the resin composition. Given that paragraph [0087] describes a separate embodiment in which the resin composition includes two urethane (meth)acrylate oligomers, the limitation directed to the oligomer being included in an amount of 10 wt% or more appears to be specifically disclosed within the context of the embodiment in which only one urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer is present in the resin composition. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, the limitation in lines 10-12 directed to the weight percentage of the oligomer is interpreted as only being required when the resin composition includes one (i.e., only one) urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer.
Regarding claims 2-8, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2021/0355354, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yamamoto teaches a display device (DD) comprising a display module (DM) including a display panel (DP), a window (WP; protective member), and an adhesive member (AP) disposed between the display panel and the window ([0050], Figs. 1-3). The adhesive member (AP) may be formed from a resin composition (RC) which includes a first (meth)acrylic resin having a weight average molecular weight of about 10,000 to about 40,000 (oligomer), two or more second (meth)acrylic resins having a molecular weight of about 100 to about 250 (monomer), and two or more photoinitiators [0051].
The first (meth)acrylic resin may include urethane (meth)acrylate and may be present in an amount of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of the (meth)acrylic resin ([0053]-[0054]). Yamamoto therefore teaches that the urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer is included in an amount relative to the total weight of the resin composition which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The resin composition may have a viscosity at 25 °C of about 20 mPa-s to about 25 mPa-s ([0063]), equivalent to about 20 cP to about 25 cP, which falls squarely within the claimed range of about 5 cP to about 50 cP. Yamamoto teaches that each of the second (meth)acrylic resins may have a glass transition temperature (Tg) of about -100 °C to about -30 °C ([0060]), such that the resin composition which is constituted mainly of the second (meth)acrylic resins has a glass transition temperature which overlaps or falls within the claimed range. Yamamoto further teaches that the adhesive member may have a peel strength of about 1.2 kg/inch to about 2.0 kg/inch with respect to glass ([0026]), equivalent to about 1200 to about 2000 gf/25 mm. The adhesive member therefore is considered to have a 180 degree peel strength within the claimed range with respect to a polymer substrate, in particular when measured using a high surface energy polymer substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 5A-5B, the adhesive member (AP) is formed by UV irradiation (photo-curing) of the resin composition (RC) which is provided on an upper surface of the display panel or on a lower surface of the window (WP) [0092].
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the display device (DD) includes an input sensing unit (TP) disposed on the display panel (DP), such that the adhesive member (AP) is disposed between the input sensing unit and the window (WP) ([0050], Fig. 3).
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 2021/0214482) in view of Cho et al. (US 2017/0121564, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 7, Morita teaches a flexible display device (DD) comprising a display module (DM) including a display panel (DP), a window (WP; protective member), and an adhesive member (AP) disposed between the display panel and the window ([0053], [0074], Figs. 1-7, 10-11). The display device may further include a light control layer (PP) disposed between the adhesive member (AP) and in the window (WP) and an optical adhesive layer (AP-a) disposed between the light control layer and the window ([0119], Figs. 10-11).
The adhesive member (AP) and optical adhesive layer (AP-a) may each be an optically clear adhesive (OCA) film or an optically clear resin (OCR) layer formed of a resin composition including a (meth)acrylic monomer, a urethane acrylate oligomer, and at least one photoinitiator [0121]. The viscosity of the resin composition is about 10 mPa-s to about 50 mPa-s at 25 °C ([0084]), equivalent to about 10 cP to about 50 cP, which falls within the claimed range. The resin composition includes about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of the urethane acrylate oligomer based on a total content of the (meth)acrylic monomer and the urethane acrylate oligomer ([0086]), thus corresponding to a content relative to the total weight of the resin composition which overlaps the claimed range of 10 wt% or more. The cured resin composition also exhibits a 180° peeling strength of 15 N/inch or more with respect to a glass substrate, where the high peeling strength ensures that bending at the interface of the optical adhesive layer and the adhesive member does not occur when the display device is folded or bent ([0102], [0123], [0150]). Given that a peel strength of 15 N/inch or more is equivalent to about 6000 gf/25 mm or more, the adhesive composition taught by Morita is considered to have a 180 degree peel strength within the claimed range with respect to a polymer substrate, in particular when measured using a high surface energy polymer substrate.
Although Morita teaches that the flexible display device has excellent reliability when folding due to the characteristics of the adhesive member, wherein the display device can include a folding area (FA) or a plurality of bending areas (BA1, BA2) ([0007], [0055], [0067], Figs. 1-5), the reference is silent to a glass transition temperature of the adhesive.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive compositions for display devices, Cho et al. teaches an adhesive film for use in optical display devices, in particular, where the adhesive film has good bendability and foldability for use in a flexible display ([0005], [0037], [0111]). Cho et al. teaches that the adhesive film has a peel strength of about 200 gf/in to about 5000 gf/in with respect to a corona-treated PET film and has a glass transition temperature of about -10 °C or less, for example about -50 °C to about -20 °C, wherein within this range, the adhesive film may have good bendability at low temperatures and may exhibit good adhesive strength at room temperature and at high temperatures ([0043]-[0044]). Similar to Morita, Cho et al. teaches that the adhesive film may be formed from an adhesive composition including a (meth)acrylic copolymer, a monofunctional (meth)acrylic monomer, a polyfunctional (meth)acrylic monomer, and an initiator, where the desired glass transition temperature can be achieved, for example, by adjusting the relative amounts and/or molecular weights of the constituent monomers and polymers ([0009], [0071], [0090], [0100]).
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 Morita by setting a glass transition temperature of the adhesive member and optical adhesive layer within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 7, as suggested by Cho et al., in order to ensure that the adhesive member and optical adhesive layer have good bendability at low temperatures and exhibit good adhesive strength at higher temperatures.
Regarding claim 6, Morita in view of Cho et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Morita further teaches that the light control layer may be a polarization plate or a color filter layer [0028].
Regarding claim 8, Morita in view of Cho et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Morita further teaches that the display device (DD) comprises an input sensing unit (TP) disposed on the display panel (DP), wherein the adhesive member (AP) is disposed between the input sensing unit and the window (WP; protective member) ([0074], Fig. 11).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 2021/0214482) in view of Cho et al. (US 2017/0121564, cited on IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 2020/0017722).
Regarding claim 4, Morita in view of Cho et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Morita teaches that the flexible display device has excellent reliability when folding due to the characteristics of the adhesive member, wherein the display device can include at least one folding area (FA; folding region) ([0007], [0057], Figs. 1-4), the reference is silent to a radius of curvature of the folding area.
However, in the analogous art of foldable display devices, Uchida et al. teaches an adhesive sheet capable of being used for adhesion of two component members of a flexible display device capable of being flexed or curved [0001]. The adhesive sheet used in the flexible display device must have the optical characteristics and durability required for an ordinary flat display panel while also having resistance from flexure, exfoliation, and blistering in a flexing test [0010]. Uchida et al. teaches that the curvature radius of a flexible display or flexible component member is preferably 10 mm or less, more preferably 3 mm or less, to enable the use of the display in a folded state [0090].
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 flexible display device of Morita in view of Cho et al. by specifying a radius of curvature of the folding area to be within the claimed range of about 5 mm or less, as suggested by Uchida et al., in order to enable the flexible display device to be used in a folded state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (KR 2019-0102506, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches an optically clear adhesive sheet for bonding various optical components in flexible display devices, wherein the adhesive composition comprises a block polymer based on (meth)acrylate units having a Tg of -50 °C to 10 °C and a urethane acrylate oligomer ([0003]-[0004], [0023]).
Fujiwara et al. (US 2021/0292536) teaches a display device (DD) comprising an adhesive member (AP) formed from a resin composition including a first (meth)acrylic resin having a weight average molecular weight of 500 or less (monomer), a second (meth)acrylic resin having a weight average molecular weight of 6,000 or more (oligomer), and a radical polymerization initiator ([0064]-[0065]). The second (meth)acrylic resin may be a urethane acrylate oligomer and may be included in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% relative to the total content of the first and second (meth)acrylic resins in order to enable the resin composition to exhibit a low viscosity of about 1 mPa-s to about 100 mPa-s ([0078]-[0081]).
An et al. (US 2018/0194969) teaches an optical laminate comprising an adhesive layer (200) arranged between a substrate (100) and an optical layer (300), wherein the adhesive composition comprises a (meth)acrylate monomer, a photocurable (meth)acrylate oligomer which may be a urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer, and a photoinitiator ([0022], [0030], [0059], Figs. 1-2).
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights