CTNF 19/058,771 CTNF 75626 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restriction 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-5 , drawn to a method of making a display device , classified in B32B37/1284 . II. Claim s 6-10 , drawn to an electronic device , classified in H10K59/873 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-18 AIA Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product can be made by a different method such as one where a release liner is removed and then only the adhesive layer is cut . 08-21 Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The two groups would require different search strategies and different rejections. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with an attorney for applicant on 5/26/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I , claim s 1-5 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3 and 4 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 3, it is unclear if the adhesive layer is bonded to the bezel or not as it states the adhesive is bonded to he bezel, but it also states “in case that the bezel pattern is bonded to the adhesive layer”, i.e. in case = if it is bonded. Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by irradiating at a rate of about 250-3000 mm/s as irradiance appears to be a term used to measure the amount of energy PER UNIT AREA, with units of mW/cm2 or the equivalent and a unit of mm/s would be used for a scan speed. As the terminology cannot be understood, no art rejection can be made. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumoto et al.(USA Publication 2012/0064325) in view of Stockholm et al.(US Publication 2020/0347273 . Fumoto et al. discloses a method of making a display device comprising providing an adhesive sheet(12) have release liners on either side, removing the release liners to bond one side to a display device(14) and the other side to a glass layer(13) The reference does not disclose the adhesive and one release layer being cut so the side surface is at an incline to the direction perpendicular to their faces. Stockholm et al. discloses an adhesive laminate having release layers on both sides with one release layer and the adhesive being laser cut at an incline to the direction perpendicular to the faces.(Abstract, Figure 2) This allows removal of the adhesive from the lower release layer without damaging the adhesive.[0002] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a laser cut adhesive laminate with an incline on the side since this would allow easier removal from the second release liner as taught by Stockholm et al.[0002] While there is no suggestion which surface of the adhesive is applied to which substrate, one in the art would appreciate there are only two choices and thus they are obvious alternatives in the art. Regarding claim 2, the adhesive forms an acute angle with the second release layer as shown in Stockholm et al.(Figure 2) Regarding claim 3, the printing part(15) can be considered a bezel as it is located beneath the edge(non-display) part of the window. It is located between the adhesive layer(12) and the cover glass(11) while the second side is boned to the display device via the glass layer 13 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 5 is 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a higher adhesive modulus for the side surface of the adhesive relative to the edge portion which is higher than the central portion of the adhesive. While Namkung et al.(US Patent 10,668,687) suggests the modulus of the edge being greater than that of the center of the adhesive, it does not suggest a third modulus for the adhesive layer . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays. 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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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. BARBARA J. MUSSER Primary Examiner Art Unit 1746 /BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 3 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 4 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 5 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 6 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 19/058,771 Page 7 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights