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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 2 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
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 05/14/2025, 01/08/2026, 06/15/2026 are considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2, the limitation in lines 4-6 reciting “the Yong’s modulus of the third window protection layer is smaller than the Young’s modulus of the first window protection layer and the Young’s modulus of the second window protection layer” is indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation means:
that the Young’s modulus of the third window protection layer is smaller than the combined Young’s modulus of both the first window protection layer and the second window protection layer; or
that the Young’s modulus of the third window protection layer is smaller than the Young’s modulus of the first window protection layer; and the Young’s modulus of the third window protection layer is smaller than the Young’s modulus of the second window protection layer.
Clarification by the Applicant is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (US 2019/0377386).
Regarding claim 1, Heo et al. teaches a window and display device comprising the same, as shown for example in Figure 2 which is reproduced and annotated below for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heo et al. teaches that the display device has a display area, shown above as the central portion between the two annotated rectangles, and non-display areas shown by the annotated rectangles where the light blocking layer (210) and the housing (400) are present ([0002, 0007-0030, 0070-0084, 0091-0102, 0105-0106, 0109-0112]). The display device further comprises a display panel (100) in both the display area and the non-display area, and a cover window (310) facing the display panel and present in both the display and non-display areas ([0002, 0007-0030, 0070-0084, 0091-0102, 0105-0106, 0109-0112]).
The cover window (310) comprises a first surface (312), a second surface (311) opposite the first surface and closer to the display panel (100) than the first surface (312), and a third side (313, 314, 315; third surface) found in the non-display area that connects the first surface with the second surface as shown in Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 4 from the reference reproduced below, Heo et al. teaches that the cover window comprises a first coating layer (330; first protection layer) including at least one of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and dimethylsiloxane
PNG
media_image2.png
209
365
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at a thickness of 7-13 micrometers on a first surface (312) of the cover window and a second coating layer (320; second protection layer) comprised of acrylic compound, epoxy compound, silica alumina or combinations thereof at a thickness of 10-30 micrometers ([0017-0020, 0073-0086]). Heo et al. further teaches that on the third side (313, 314, 315; third surface), the end of the first coating layer (330; first protection layer) is covered by the second coating layer (320; second protection layer) ([0106]). The combination of the two coating layers corresponds to a third protection layer, wherein the combination of the coatings is different than the first coating layer (330; first protection layer) on the first surface and the second coating layer (320; second protection layer) on the second surface.
In other words, using the terminology form the claims, the first coating layer (330) corresponds to the first protection layer; the second coating layer (320) corresponds to the second protection layer and the combination of the first coating layer and the second coating layer on the side surface corresponds to the third protection layer, wherein the combination of the two coating layers on the side surface is different than the individual layers on the top surface and the bottom surface.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2019/0377386).
Regarding claim 2, Heo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and each of the first coating layer (330; first protection layer), coating layer (320; second protection layer) and combination of the first coating layer and the second coating layer on the side surface (third protection layer) would inherently have a Young’s modulus.
While the reference does not expressly teach that the combination of the first coating layer and the second coating layer on the side surface (third protection layer) has a smaller Young’s modulus than the first coating layer and the second coating layer, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired properties for the various portions of the display device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that difference surfaces of the display device would have different requirements regarding properties that affect durability and stress based upon the environmental factors and stressors different surfaces of the display device are exposed thereto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2020/0159285) teaches a cover member and display device including the same, comprising a protective film that covers an upper surface, side surface and lower surface of the window member (see Figure 4-10, [0010-0029, 0065-0083]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights