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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8 line 1, “50 um to about 150 um” should be “50 μm to about 150 μm”.
In claim 12 line 1, “The display device of claim 10” should be “The method of claim 10” based on claims 1 and 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1124 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 14, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug (US 20220302424).
Regarding claim 1, Yug discloses a method of manufacturing a display device (Figs. 12A-12B; Paras. [0041], [0127]) comprising:
forming a base layer (WL; Para. [0127]) on a lower protective film (PL or CF; Paras. [0105], [0131]);
forming a hard coating layer on the base layer (Para. [0091] “a hard coating layer may be disposed on an upper surface of the window WL”);
forming a layer (WPL; Para. [0127]) on the hard coating layer; and
cutting an upper protective film including the base layer, the hard coating layer, and the layer and the lower protective film with a laser (see Fig. 12A and Para. [0135] teaching LD1 is cutting an upper protective film including WL, the hard coating layer, the layer and CF).
In the Figure 12 embodiment, Yug does not explicitly disclose the layer being a refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to about 1.4.
However, Yug teaches a protective layer may be a refractive layer having a refractive index of about 1.5 (see Para. [0127] teaching the layer is a protective layer and see Para. [0107] teaching a polyamide film as a protective material) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layer as disclosed by Yug in the Figure 12 embodiment, wherein the layer is a refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to about 1.4, for the purpose of forming a protective layer using a polymer film wherein Yug suggests the layer is a protective layer (Yug: Paras. [0107], [0127]).
Regarding claim 5, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses removing the lower protective film after the cutting of the upper protective film and the lower protective film with the laser (see Paras. [0027], [0136] teaching removing CF).
Regarding claim 6, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose in the cutting of the upper protective film and the lower protective film with the laser,
the upper protective film and the lower protective film are disposed on a stage and moved, and
a moving speed of the stage is in a range of about 10 m/min to about 50 m/min.
However, Yug teaches in the cutting of the upper protective film and the lower protective film with the laser, the upper protective film and the lower protective film are disposed on a stage and moving a laser relative to the stage (Figs. 10-12A and Para. [0135] teaching providing a work panel PL), and
a moving speed of the stage is in a range of about 10 m/min to about 50 m/min (Para. [0135] teaching a moving speed between about 50 mm/s = 3 m/min to about 300 mm/s = 18 m/min) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yug, wherein in the cutting of the upper protective film and the lower protective film with the laser, the upper protective film and the lower protective film are disposed on a stage and moved, and a moving speed of the stage is in a range of about 10 m/min to about 50 m/min , for the purpose of cutting a display device with a preferred irradiating speed (Yug: Para. [0134]).
Regarding claim 7, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the lower protective film includes a plastic (see Para. [0107] teaching using a polyamide film as a protective material).
Regarding claim 8, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a thickness of the lower protective film is in a range of about 50 um to about 150 um. (see Para. [0107] teaching PL having a thickness of about 20 to 50 μm) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 14, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the refractive layer is a single layer (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 17, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a thickness of the hard coating layer is in a range of about 5 um to about 13 um (see Para. [0091] teaching a range of about 1 μm to about 5 μm) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 19, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose an elastic modulus of the hard coating layer is less than or equal to about 10 GPa.
However, Yug teaches a layer in a display device might have an elastic modulus greater than or equal to about 1 GPa at room temperature (Para. [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by Yug, wherein an elastic modulus of the hard coating layer is less than or equal to about 10 GPa, for the purpose of providing an impact absorbing function (Yug: Para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 21, Yug discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1 and 12A-12B; Paras. [0029], [0041], [0127]) comprising:
a processor that applies driving signals (Paras. [0110]-[0111]); and
a display device (Fig. 1) manufactured by a method including:
forming a base layer (WL; Para. [0127]) on a lower protective film (PL or CF; Paras. [0105], [0131]);
forming a hard coating layer on the base layer (Para. [0091] “a hard coating layer may be disposed on an upper surface of the window WL”);
forming a layer (WPL; Para. [0127]) on the hard coating layer; and
cutting an upper protective film including the base layer, the hard coating layer, and the layer and the lower protective film with a laser (see Fig. 12A and Para. [0135] teaching LD1 is cutting an upper protective film including WL, the hard coating layer, the layer and CF).
In the Figure 12 embodiment, Yug does not explicitly disclose the layer being a refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to about 1.4.
However, Yug teaches a protective layer may be a refractive layer having a refractive index of about 1.5 (see Para. [0127] teaching the layer is a protective layer and see Para. [0107] teaching a polyamide film as a protective material) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yug in the Figure 12 embodiment, wherein the layer is a refractive layer having a refractive index of less than or equal to about 1.4, for the purpose of forming a protective layer using a polymer film wherein Yug suggests the layer is a protective layer (Yug: Paras. [0107], [0127]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Yura et al. (JP 2014167548 A; the English translation document attached, hereinafter “Yura”).
Regarding claim 2, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose an output of an oscillator that irradiates the laser is in a range of about 5 watts to about 100 watts.
However, Yura teaches an output from a laser that irradiates the laser is in a range of about 20 watts to about 50 watts (Para [0027]) (regarding “an oscillator”, the examiner considers it is well known that a laser requires an optical oscillator to generate its coherent beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Yura, wherein an output of an oscillator that irradiates the laser is in a range of about 5 watts to about 100 watts, for the purpose of setting the irradiation conditions of the cutting laser (Yura: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a wavelength of the laser is in a range of about 5 um to about 15 um.
However, Yura teaches a wavelength of the laser being in a range of about 8.5 um to about 11.0 um (Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Yura, wherein a wavelength of the laser is in a range of about 5 um to about 15 um, for the purpose of setting the irradiation conditions of the cutting laser (Yura: Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a diameter of the laser is in a range of about 0.05 mm to about 0.2 mm.
However, Yura teaches a diameter of the laser being in a range of about 0.05 mm to about 0.15 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Yura, wherein a diameter of the laser is in a range of about 0.05 mm to about 0.2 mm, for the purpose of setting the irradiation conditions of the cutting laser (Yura: Para. [0027]).
Claims 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Lim et al. (US 20160369131, hereinafter “Lim”).
Regarding claim 10, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose the refractive layer includes an organic compound including a difluorocarbene (—CF2) and a trifluoromethyl group (—CF3).
However, Lim teaches a protective refractive layer includes an organic compound including a difluorocarbene (—CF2) and a trifluoromethyl group (—CF3) (Para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refractive layer as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Lim, wherein the refractive layer includes an organic compound including a difluorocarbene (—CF2) and a trifluoromethyl group (—CF3), wherein "the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination" (see MPEP 2144.07), for the purpose of obtaining a protective layer for a window (Lim: Para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose in the forming of the refractive layer, the refractive layer is formed by a vacuum deposition.
However, Lim teaches in the forming of a refractive layer, a refractive layer is formed by a vacuum deposition (see Paras. [0147]-[0148] teaching a protection layer 340 is formed by a vacuum deposition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Lim, wherein the forming of the refractive layer, the refractive layer is formed by a vacuum deposition, for the purpose of using a coating process to deposit a protective layer (Lim: Paras. [0147]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 16, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the refractive layer is in a range of about 70 nm to about 130 nm.
However, Lim teaches a thickness of a protective refractive layer is in a range of about 2 nm to about 100 nm (Para. [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Lim, wherein a thickness of the refractive layer is in a range of about 70 nm to about 130 nm, for the purpose of obtaining a desired thin thickness for the display (Lim: Para. [0150]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Carbajal et al. (US 20220388288, hereinafter “Carbajal”).
Regarding claim 18, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the hard coating layer is less than or equal to about 10% of a thickness of the upper protective film.
However, Carbajal teaches an upper protective film (Para. [0051] “A cover window assembly can have a height of at least 10 mm”) including a hard coating layer, wherein a thickness of the hard coating layer is less than or equal to about 10% of a thickness of the upper protective film (see Par. [0023] teaching the hard coating layer having a thickness of from 1 to 20 μm) (the examiner further considers Yug also teaches the thickness of a hard coting layer being about 1 μm to about 5 μm. See Para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper protective film as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Carbajal, wherein a thickness of the hard coating layer is less than or equal to about 10% of a thickness of the upper protective film, for the purpose of using an upper protective film thick enough which might prevent glass failure (Carbajal: Para. [0051]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Lim, and in further view of Sugie et al. (US 20120171613, hereinafter “Sugie”).
Regarding claim 11, Yug as modified by Lim discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a molar ratio of the difluorocarbene to the trifluoromethyl group is about 2:1.
However, Sugie teaches a molar ratio of the difluorocarbene to the trifluoromethyl group is about 2:1 (see Para. [0072] teaching heptafluorobutanoic acid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by the layer as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Sugie, wherein a molar ratio of the difluorocarbene to the trifluoromethyl group is about 2:1, for the purpose of obtaining a protective layer having a low refractive index (Sugie: Para. [0103]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Lim, and in further view of Sun et al. (US 20160369103, hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 12, Yug as modified by Lim discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose the organic compound includes dodecafluoroheptyl acrylate (DFHA) represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
129
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in Formula 1, n is one of 6, 8, 10, and 12.
However, Sun teaches an organic compound includes dodecafluoroheptyl acrylate (DFHA) represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
129
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in Formula 1, n is one of 6, 8, 10, and 12 (see Para. [0038] teaching 1H,1H,7H-dodecafluoroheptyl acrylate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as disclosed by the layer as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Sun, wherein the organic compound includes dodecafluoroheptyl acrylate (DFHA) represented by Formula 1, n is one of 6, 8, 10, and 12, for the purpose of obtaining a low refractive index coating (Sun: Para. [0022]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Lim, and in further view of Tanaka et al. (US 20040017364, hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 20, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yug does not explicitly disclose a hardness of the hard coating layer is in a range of about 40 KPa·mm3 to about 170 KPa·mm3.
However, Tanaka teaches a hard coating layer is in a range of about 30 KPa·mm3 to about 700 KPa·mm3 (Para. [0037]) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hard coating layer as disclosed by Yug with the teachings of Tanaka, wherein a hardness of the hard coating layer is in a range of about 40 KPa·mm3 to about 170 KPa·mm3, for the purpose of obtaining a good balance between the favorable hardness of the hard coat layer and the fragile breakage avoidance (Tanaka: Para. [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 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:
Regarding claim 9, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Yug does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “in the cutting of the upper protective film and the lower protective film with the laser, the laser cuts about 10% or more and about 70% or less of a thickness of the lower protective film”.
Rather, Yug teaches away from the claimed invention because Yug teaches the lower protective film is continuous (PL1 in Fig. 12B; Para. [0122]) or entirely cut (CF in Fig. 12B) along the thickness direction. The examiner further considered Hirata et al. (US 20240270623, hereinafter “Hirata”) and Lee et al. (US 20210178742, hereinafter “Lee”). However, Yug, Hirata and Lee and the prior art, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Yug discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Yug does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “an elastic strain of the upper protective film is in a range of about 7% to about 30%”. The examiner further considered Kang (US 20190352756). For example, Kang teaches foldable display structures, in which amorphous alloys have a high elastic strain about 2% or more, but fails to disclose the method of manufacturing a display device as required in claim 1. Yug and Kang and the prior art, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights