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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 10 – 12, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2015/0010742 A1), in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0344747 A1).
With regard to claims 1 & 10, Han et al. teach a deformable (flexible) display device (paragraph [0008] & Fig. 1) comprising a display module (i.e., “display panel”) to display an image (paragraph [0006]) and a window. The window comprises a polymer resin layer (110) (Applicant’s “base substrate”) formed of polycarbonate (paragraph [0040]), and a light transmittance film (Applicant’s “protective film”) comprising a first substrate (122) and a second substrate (123), each of which may be composed of a stack structure of two or more layers of different kinds of plastic (paragraphs [0020] – [0021], [0045] & [0058]) (Applicant’s “sublayers”) of substantially uniform thickness (Figs. 1 – 3). The substrates are formed of different materials. For example, the first substrate and the second substrate may be independently formed of a polyethylene terephthalate film, a polycarbonate film, and a polyimide film (paragraphs [0015] & [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Han et al. teach a buffer layer (121), which may include a transparent adhesive (paragraphs [0012] – [0013]) (i.e., “a second adhesive layer”) between the first and second substrates (122 and 123) (i.e., “first and second sub-layers”) (paragraphs [0012] – [0013] & [0046] – [0047], Figs. 1 – 2). The buffer layer (121) may be composed of the same material as the first plastic substrates 121 and 122, such as polymethylmethacrylate (i.e., “an acrylic-based composition”) (paragraph [0043]).
Han et al. do not teach a first adhesive located between a protective layer and a substrate, wherein the first adhesive has an adhesive strength of about 10 gf/in to about 60 gf/in.
Park et al. teach a pressure sensitive adhesive (20) is located between a protective layer (10) and a substrate of a display device of an electronic device, such as a personal computer or cellular phone (paragraph [0004]). The adhesive has a peeling force (adhesive strength) of 5 gf/in – 30 gf/in at a peeling rate of 0.3 m/min and a peeling angle of 180° at 150°C. This peeling strength allows for stably protecting the adherend from contamination without damaging the adherent upon peeling (paragraphs [0033] & [0035]). The adhesive has a peeling force of 5 gf/in – 60 gf/in at a peeling rate of 20 m/min and a peeling angle of 180 (paragraphs [0033] & [0038]). This peeling strength allows an adhered to be stably protected from external contamination factors, which does not damage the adherent upon peeling (paragraph [0038]).
Furthermore, Park et al. teach by adjusting the ratio of a content of a monomer containing the crosslinkable functional group, a desired level of a peeling force can be ensured regardless of a peeling rate after implementing a pressure sensitive adhesive layer (paragraph [0014]). The weight ratio of the monomer containing the crosslinkable function group may be more than 10 wt% in the (meth)acrylate polymer of the monomer mixture. The lower limit of the ratio is not particularly limited as long as the ratio is more than 10 wt%. Also, an upper limit of the ratio is not particularly limited, and may be 30 wt.% or less (paragraphs [0013] – [0014]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the weight ratio of the monomer containing the crosslinkable functional group of the acrylic-based adhesive taught by Han et al. to achieve a peel force (adhesive strength) in the range of 5 gf/in – 70 gf/in, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 60 gf/in, in order to avoid damage of the adherent upon peeling.
With regard to claims 2 & 11, Han et al. teach the light transmittance film (Applicant’s “protective film”) comprising a first substrate (122) and a second substrate (123), each of which may be composed of a stack structure of two or more layers of different kinds of plastic (paragraphs [0020] – [0021], [0045] & [0058]) (Applicant’s “sublayers”) of substantially uniform thickness (Figs. 1 – 3). The substrates are formed of different materials. For example, the first substrate and the second substrate may be independently formed of a polyethylene terephthalate film, a polycarbonate film, and a polyimide film (paragraphs [0015] & [0042]).
With regard to claims 3 & 12, Han et al. teach the polymer resin layer (110) (Applicant’s “base substrate”) is formed of polycarbonate (paragraph [0040]) and the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e., “first and second sub-layers”) may be independently formed of a polyethylene terephthalate film, a polycarbonate film, and a polyimide film (paragraphs [0015] & [0042]).
With regard to claim 19, Han et al. the display module may be an organic light emitting display module (i.e., “comprises a display unit including an organic light emitting device”) (paragraph [0065]).
Claim(s) 4 – 6 & 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. & Park et al., as applied to claim 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Aytug et al. (US 2013/0157008 A1).
With regard to claims 4 – 6 & 13 – 15, Han et al. teach a hard coating layer (124) position on the surface of the protective layer (paragraph [0051] & Fig. 2 shown above), but do not teach the presence of an anti-fingerprint (anti-fouling) layer formed of at leaste one of a fluorine-based resin and silicon-based resin, and is about 100 Å to about 200 Å in thickness, on the protective layer.
Aytug et al. teach anti-fingerprint coatings for are desirable for touchscreen devices to resist smudging and fingerprinting, and thus, remain optically transparent (paragraphs [0003] – [0007]). The coating is formed of a hydrophobic nanostructured layer (14) of thickness 1 nm to 2000 nm (10 – 20,000 Å), more preferably 20 – 500 nm (200 – 5000 Å) (paragraph [0047]). Nanostructured features of the nanostructured layer are made hydrophobic by the application of a hydrophobic coating, such as fluorinated silane (paragraph [0048]), for achieving a hydrophobic and oleophobic surface. The hydrophobic/oleophobic surface limits the amount of fingerprint oil that adheres and disperses on the touchscreen surface (paragraphs [0086] – [0087]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Aytug et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form an anti-fingerprint coating of thickness in the range of 1 – 2000 nm (10 – 20,000 Å) and formed of nanostructured features coated with a silane coating (contains silicon) for producing a touch screen surface that is resistant to smudging and fingerprints.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. & Park et al., as applied to claim 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Kamada et al. (US 2019/0184676 A1) and Huntsman Corp. (“A guide to thermoplastic polyurethanes (TPU),” © 2016).
With regard to claims 7 & 16, Han et al. teach the hard coating layer may have a thickness of about 10 µm to about 30 µm (paragraphs [0025] & [0051]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 5 – 10 µm.
Han et al. do not teach the indentation hardness of the hard coating layer.
Kamada et al. teach a surface protective film for an electronic display surface (paragraphs [0001] – [0002]) made of **polycarbonate type polyurethane (i.e. a thermoplastic polyurethane) (paragraphs [0015], [0029], [0068] – [0060]), wherein the polyol monomers of the polyurethane polymer chain are formed by polycarbonate type polyol (paragraphs [0017], [0059], [0066] – [0070]). The surface protective layer has light transmission properties, transparency, scratch resistance, and weather resistance properties (paragraphs [0029] & [0061]). The protective layer may contain various additives, but the additives are optional (paragraphs [0081] – [0083], & [0086] – [0087]). As such, the reference suggests embodiments in which the surface protective layer consists of the polycarbonate type polyurethane.
**As evidenced by Szycher’s Handbook of Polyurethanes, polycarbonate-based polyols are classified as polyester polyols (pg. 49), which Huntsman (discussed below) teaches on pg. 4 is a commonly known thermoplastic polyurethane.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kamada et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a polyurethane material, in the form of polycarbonate type polyurethane (i.e. a thermoplastic polyurethane) as a surface protective film (i.e. a hard coating) with good light transmission properties, transparency, scratch resistance, and weather resistance properties.
Kamada et al. do not explicitly teach the Vicker’s Hardness (HV) of the polycarbonate type polyurethane (i.e. thermoplastic polyurethane) surface protective film.
Huntsman teaches the known hardness of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) ranges from about 60 (Rockwell) Shore A hardness up to about 70 Shore D hardness. Shore A hardness denotes a flexible type of TPU while Shore D hardness denotes more rigid varieties. TPU is composed of soft blocks and hard blocks of monomers within the polymer chain. The soft polyol blocks provide flexibility and elastomeric character (i.e. elasticity), while the hard isocyanate block provides toughness and physical performance (e.g. hardness). The hardness of TPU is adjusted within the range discussed above by adjusting the ratio of the soft and hard blocks (segments) within the TPU polymer.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Huntsman, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the ratio of soft polycarbonate-based polyol segments and the hard isocyanate segments in the thermoplastic polyurethane polymer chains taught by Kamada et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) protective (hard) coating layer with the desired hardness. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. & Park et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2015/0086763 A1).
With regard to claims 8 & 17, Han et al. do not explicitly teach a thickness of the first sub-layer is greater than a thickness of the second sub-layer.
However, Han et al. teach the first substrate has a thickness of about 50 µm to about 125 µm and the second plastic substrate has a thickness of about 50 µm to about 250 µm (paragraphs [0016] & [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to form the sub-layers having a thickness having any value within the ranges taught, such as the thickness of the first sub-layer greater than the thickness of the second sub-layer.
Han et al. do not explicitly teach an elastic modulus of the first sublayer is about 30 MPa to about 70 MPa, and an elastic modulus of the second sub-layer is about 3.5 GPa to about 7 GPa.
Nam et al. teach display device comprising a cover window 20, wherein the cover window comprises a base layer (21b) formed of polycarbonate (paragraph [0051]) and having a thickness of about 25 to about 165 µm in the folding part (paragraph [0045]) and about 2 to about 50 µm in the non-folding part (paragraph [0046]. These thickness values are optimized for desired flexibility (i.e., “elastic modulus”) relative to the layer directly above the base layer (paragraphs [0047] – [0048]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Nam et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each of the first and second plastic substrates (i.e., “sub-layers”) taught by Han et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve layers of desired flexibility (i.e., “elastic modulus”). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 20, Han et al. teach the window may be deformed to form a three-dimensional design, such as a bent window (paragraphs [0008] & [0075]).
Han et al. do not explicitly teach the bent window has a radius of curvature of about 10 mm or less.
However, as discussed above, based on the teachings of Nam et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each of the first and second plastic substrates (i.e., “sub-layers”) taught by Han et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve cover window substrate layers of desired flexibility, and thus a flexibility (i.e., “radius of curvature”) of the window in the bent region (“A” of Fig. 1 taught by Han et al.). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. & Park et al., as applied to claim 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Kee et al. (US 2015/0201487 A1).
With regard to claims 9 & 18, Han et al. and Park et al. fail to disclose each of the first adhesive and the second adhesive has an elastic modulus of about 0.03 MPa to about 0.2 MPa.
Kee et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a display panel, a flexible outer member, such as a protective member, and an adhesive member between the display member and the outer member (paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0036], [0079], & [0083]). The adhesive member has an elastic modulus of about 0.01 MPa to about 1 MPa (paragraphs [0011] & [0060]). It is desirable for the elastic modulus of the adhesive member to be less than 1/1000 of the elastic modulus of the display panel and the protective member (paragraph [0063]). When the adhesive member has an elastic modulus greater than disclosed range, the outer member (e.g., protective layer) may separate from the panel when bent due to the stress of the adhesive member (paragraphs [0013], [0040], [0070], & [0088]). The elastic modulus of the pressure sensitive adhesive sheet is changed depending on the composition ratio of the polymer, the crosslinking agent, and the resin (paragraphs [0060] – [0061]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to prevent undesirable separation of layers within the window by using a pressure sensitive adhesive for each of the first and second adhesive layers with an elastic modulus of about 0.01 MPa to about 1 MPa, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed elastic modulus range of 0.03 – 0.2 MPa. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights