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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 2, 5, & 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 & 21 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (*KR 10-2025-0022316), in view of Bae et al. (US 2024/0422931 A1).
*8/07/2023 filing date, before Applicant’s provisional filing date of 11/27/2024
With regard to claim 1, Kim et al. teach a foldable display device (i.e., “foldable display device”) (pgs. 2, 6, & 12) comprising a window (WM) comprising a base substrate (110), such as a glass substrate (pgs. 6 – 7 & 11 – 12) and has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 60 µm or less, more preferably 20 µm (pg. 12), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 micrometers to less than or equal to less than or equal to 300 micrometers.
Furthermore, Kim teach an embodiment in which a multilayer coating (LY1, LY2, LY3, LY5) (i.e., “hardness coating”) is deposited on the base layer and composed of silicon nitride (Si3N4) (i.e., “inorganic material”) (pgs. 12 & 15 – 16, Example 2), exhibiting a hardness of 11.5 – 12.2 GPa, measured by Berkovich Indenter Hardness test (Example 2, Table 3), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed hardness range of greater than or equal to 12 GigaPascals. 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. do not explicitly teach the foldable display device can achieve a parallel plate distance in millimeters less than or equal to 0.1 times the substrate thickness in micrometers.
As discussed above, the glass substrate (BL) taught by Kim et al. is formed of the same thickness as claimed by Applicant.
Furthermore, Kim et al. teach layer 1 (LY1) composed of Si3N4 has a thickness of 85.48 nm, layer 2 (LY2) of Si3N4 has a thickness of 133.69 nm, third layer (LY3) of Si3N4 has a thickness of 17.30 nm, and fifth layer (LY5) of SiO2 has a thickness of 85.49 nm (pgs. 15 – 16), which is a total thickness of 321.96 nm (0.322 µm). Applicant’s hardness coating comprises an optical stack comprising a silicon-containing nitride, such as silicon nitride (specification, paragraphs [0019], [0143], & [0146]).
Applicant’s specification teaches their hardness coating and/or the optical stack has a thickness of greater than or equal to 10 nm to less than or equal to 10 micrometers (specification, paragraphs [0013] & [0139]).
Therefore, Kim et al. teach a substantially similar structure as Applicant’s flexible display device.
However, Applicant’s method of manufacturing to obtain the desired bending performance included a step of applying masking tape to the side edges of the glass substrate in the bending area before depositing the hard coating on to the glass substrate surface in order to prevent any material of the hard coating layer from being deposited on the edge (minor) surface of the substrate (see specification, paragraph [0225]). Kim et al. do not teach the presence of hard coating material on the edge surface of the glass substrate. However, Kim et al. deposits the hard coat layer(s) onto the glass substrate using the same vapor deposition method (pg. 14), but is silent with regard to any effort to prevent the presence of any hard coating material on the edge surfaces of the glass substrate in the final product.
Bae et al. teach a display device including a display panel and a window disposed on the panel in which a bending region can be bent and a flat region that is kept flat are defined (abstract). When the thickness of a first coating layer (i.e., “hard coating layer”) disposed on a foldable substrate in the portion corresponding to the bending area is thinner than the thickness of the first coating layer in the portion corresponding to the flat area, the window can be easily bent (paragraph [0112]). Furthermore, in a preferred embodiment, the coating layer is disposed only on one surface of the base layer (i.e., edge surfaces of the substrate free of any hard coating material) (paragraph [0135]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bae 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 amount of hardness coating along the bending axis, including edge surfaces of the glass substrate completely free of any hard coating material, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending properties (e.g., parallel plate distance in a folding test). 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 2, as discussed above for claim 1, Kim et al. teach working example 2 had a hard coating exhibiting a hardness of 11.5 – 12.2 GPa, which is less than Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or equal to 15 GigaPascals.
Kim et al. do not explicitly teach an embodiment of the hard coating comprises a stack thickness that is 700 nm or more and a hardness of greater than or equal to 15 GigaPascals.
Kim et al. uses the word “may” to describe a preferred range of thickness values of layers LY1 – LY4 (pg. 13). When the thickness of the layers LY1 – LY4 are less than the preferred range, durability and scratch resistance of the window may deteriorate. When the thickness of the LY1 – LY4 layers are greater than the preferred range, the color difference and optical characteristics of the window may deteriorate (pg. 13). In other words, Kim et al. suggests the thickness of the layers LY1 – LY4 may be greater than the preferred range when durability and scratch resistance are a greater priority than optical properties.
Applicant’s specification teaches their hardness coating and/or the optical stack has a thickness of greater than or equal to 10 nm to less than or equal to 10 micrometers (specification, paragraphs [0013] & [0139]). Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated the recited hard coating thickness of greater than or equal to 700 nm to be critical.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kim et al. and absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness (a result effective variable), 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 layer of the multilayer coating (LY1 – LY4) taught by Kim et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a hardness layer of desired durability (i.e., hardness), scratch resistance, and optical properties. 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 3, Kim et al. do not explicitly the hard coating has an elastic modulus greater than or equal to 100 GigaPascals.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Kim et al. teach a hard coating of similar composition and thickness as described in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the hard coating taught by Kim et al. inherently has similar properties, such as Applicant’s recited elastic modulus.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 4 – 5, Kim et al. teach the hard coating comprises an anti-reflective coating comprising layers LY1, LY2, & LY3 (pgs. 12 – 13).
With regard to claim 6, Kim et al. teach the optical stack comprises a fifth layer (LY5) which improves scratch resistance (i.e., “scratch-resistant layer”), and wherein the fifth layer has a thickness of 78 nm (0.078 µm) or more and 94 nm or less (0.094 µm) (pg. 14). Furthermore, Kim et al. teach optional sixth layer (LY6) and optional seventh layer (LY7) also contribute to scratch resistance of the window, wherein LY6 should have a thickness of 120 nm – 146 nm and LY7 may have a thickness of 15 nm – 19 nm (pgs. 14 – 15). Therefore, the “scratch-resistant layer” taught by Kim et al. include combination of LY5 and optional layers LY6 and LY7, which have a total thickness of 213 – 249 nm (0.213 – 249 µm), and is within Applicant’s claimed thickness range of the scratch-resistant layer of 0.05 micrometers (50 nm) or more and 3 micrometers (3000 nm) or less.
With regard to claim 7, Kim et al. teach the optical stack comprises two or more layers with different refractive indices (LY1, LY2, LY3), wherein first and third layers (LY1 and LY3) have a refractive index of 1.78 or more and 1.98 or less (i.e., “low refractive index layer(s)”), and a second layer (LY2) has a refractive index of 1.98 or more and 2.15 or less (i.e. “high refractive index layer”) (pgs. 12 – 13), such that the absolute value of a difference between the layers is 0.2 or more, and further wherein the optical stack comprises one or more of a silicon-containing oxynitride, such as Si3N4, or an aluminum-containing oxynitride (pg. 12).
With regard to claim 8, as discussed above claim 7, layers LY1 and LY3 are low refractive index layers, and layer LY2 is a high refractive index layer (i.e., “alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index layers and one or more lower refractive index materials”). The window has a transmissive area (TA) may be an area having a visible light (between 400 nm and 700 nm) of 95% (Example 2, Table 2), which is greater than 92%.
Kim et al. do not teach the surface photopic percentage reflectance (luminance) of the optical stack.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Kim et al. teach an optical stack of similar composition as disclosed in Applicant’s specification.
Therefore, the multilayer coating of layers LY1, LY2, LY3 (“anti-reflective coating”) taught by Kim et al. would inherently have a photopic percentage reflectance of less than 3% for light incident on an outer surface of the multilayer coating (i.e., “optical stack”) facing an observer.
With regard to claim 9, as discussed above for claim 8, Kim et al. teach the window has a transmissive area (TA) may be an area having a visible light (between 400 nm and 700 nm) of about 95% (Example 2, Table 2).
Furthermore, the window inherently has a photopic percentage reflectance of less than 1% for light incident on the outer surface at each angle in a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 30°.
With regard to claim 21, as discussed above for claim 1, the bending properties, such as the capability of achieving the recited parallel plate distance, is an optimizable feature of the foldable display device taught by Kim et al. comprising a multilayer coating comprising LY1, LY2, LY3 (“anti-reflecting coating placed on a surface of a foldable substrate”) when placed in tension by bending.
With regard to claim 22, as discussed above for claims 1 & 8, Kim et al. teach an optical stack of similar composition as disclosed in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the multilayer coating of layers LY1, LY2, LY3 (“anti-reflective coating”) taught by Kim et al. would inherently exhibit a residual compressive stress in a range from about 5 MPa to 500 MPa.
With regard to claim 23, Kim et al. do not teach the Mohs hardness of the multilayer coating comprising layers LY1, LY2, LY3, & LY5.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Kim et al. teach a multilayer (“hardness”) coating of similar composition and thickness as Applicant’s recited hard coating. Therefore, the multilayer coating taught by Kim et al. would inherently have a first Mohs hardness of the hard coating disposed on the foldable substrate is greater than or equal to a second Mohs hardness of the foldable substrate alone.
With regard to claim 24, as discussed above for claim 1, the capability of achieving the recited parallel plate distance is an inherent feature of the foldable display device taught by Kim et al.
With regard to claims 25 – 26, as discussed above for claim 1, the capability of achieving the recited parallel plate distance is an inherent feature of the foldable display device taught by Kim et al. Furthermore, the foldable apparatus would be able to inherently withstand 200,000 cycles in a Dynamic Cycling Test at 23°C and 50% relative humidity.
With regard to claim 27, as discussed above for claim 1, the capability of achieving the recited parallel plate distance equal to 0.1 times the substrate thickness in micrometers in a static Folding Test at 60°C and 90% relative humidity for 24 hours is an inherent feature of the foldable display device taught by Kim et al.
With regard to claim 28, Kim et al. teach foldable display device comprising a glass substrate and a multilayer (“hardness”) coating of similar composition and thickness as the glass substrate and hard coating described in Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the multilayer coating taught by Kim et al. would inherently have the same residual warp 24 hours after completion of a Static Folding Test.
With regard to claim 30, Kim et al. teach the optical stack comprises a fifth layer (LY5) which improves scratch resistance (i.e., “scratch-resistant layer”), and wherein the fifth layer may have a thickness of 78 nm (0.078 µm) or more and 94 nm or less (0.094 µm) (pg. 14). Furthermore, Kim et al. teach optional sixth layer (LY6) and optional seventh layer (LY7) also contribute to scratch resistance of the window, wherein LY6 may have a thickness of 120 nm – 146 nm and LY7 may have a thickness of 15 nm – 19 nm (pgs. 14 – 15). Therefore, the “scratch-resistant layer” taught by Kim et al. include combination of LY5 and optional layers LY6 and LY7, which may have a total thickness of 213 – 249 nm (0.213 – 0.249 µm), and is less than Applicant’s claimed thickness range of the scratch-resistant layer of 0.3µm – 3 µm.
Kim et al. uses the word “may” to describe the preferred ranges of the thickness values of layers LY5 – LY7 (pgs. 13 – 15). When the thickness of the layers are less than the preferred range discussed above, the durability and scratch resistance of the window may deteriorate. When the thickness of the layers are greater than the preferred range discussed above, the color difference and optical characteristics of the window may deteriorate (pgs. 13 – 15). In other words, Kim et al. suggests the thickness of the layers LY5 – LY7 may be greater than the preferred range when durability and scratch resistance are a greater priority than optical properties.
Applicant’s specification teaches their scratch resistant layer may have a thickness of 0.05 µm to 5 µm (specification, paragraphs [0016] & [00237]). Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated the recited thickness for the scratch-resistance layer of 0.3 µm to less than or equal to 3 micrometers to be critical.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kim et al. and absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness (a result effective variable), 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 layer of the scratch resistant coating (LY5 – LY7) taught by Kim et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a scratch resistant coating of desired scratch resistance and optical properties. 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 31, as discussed above for claims 1 & 30, Kim et al. teach the glass substrate has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 60 µm or less, more preferably 20 µm (pg. 12), and the combined thicknesses of layers LY5, LY6, LY7 (i.e., “scratch resistant layer”) can be adjusted through routine experimentation in order to achieve a scratch resistant coating of desired scratch resistance and optical properties.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. & Bae et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allan et al. (US 2023/0309368 A1).
With regard to claim 29, Kim et al. do not teach the foldable substrate comprises: a first portion comprising the substrate thickness; a second portion comprising the substrate thickness; and a central portion position between the first portion and the second portion, the central portion comprising a central thickness defined between a first central surface area and a second central opposite the first central surface area, and the substrate thickness is greater than the central thickness by greater than or equal to 30 micrometers.
Allan et al. teach a foldable display apparatus comprising a glass foldable substrate (paragraphs [0002] – [0004] & [0165]) comprising a first outer thickness (i.e., “first portion comprising the substrate thickness”), second outer thickness (i.e., “second portion comprising the substrate thickness”), and a central thickness (277) positioned between the first outer thickness and second outer thickness, wherein the first outer thickness and second outer thickness (portions) have a greater thickness than the central thickness (paragraphs [0180] – [0181] & [0190], Fig. 10). The substrate thickness in a range from about 100 micrometers to about 2 millimeters and the central thickness of the substrate is in a range from about 20 micrometers to about 80 micrometers (paragraph [0015]). As such, Allan et al. teach the substrate thickness is greater than the central thickness by 20 micrometers to 1980 micrometers. The width of the central portion (having a lesser thickness than the first and second portions of a display substrate) may be optimized to result in desired folding of a foldable apparatus without failure (paragraph [0267]).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Allan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a substrate comprising a first portion, a second portion, and a central portion, wherein the first portion and second portion have a greater thickness than the central portion, in order to achieve a foldable apparatus with improved folding performance, as determined by parallel plate distance measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claim 30 is objected to for a typographical error. See Office Action, page 2. Applicant respectfully submits that the error is corrected via the amendments to claim 30 herein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 30, the objection of claim 30 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claim 24 is rejected as allegedly failing to further limit independent claim 1. Applicant previously traversed the rejection…Without agreeing with the propriety of the rejection. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that ‘the foldable apparatus can achieve a parallel plate distance in millimeters that is less than or equal to 0.1 times the substrate thickness in micrometers in a Static Folding Test,’ in accordance with the Examiner’s suggestion. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that Bae describes a completely different material and a completely different thickness than Kim. In view of these stark differences, Applicant respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim in view of Bae” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection did not suggest incorporating the exact material and exact thickness of the coating taught by Bae et al. into the foldable display taught by Kim et al. Bae teaches adjusting the thickness of a coating portion corresponding to the edge areas of the substrate near the bendable area of a foldable display device allows the window of the device to easily bend. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize application of this teaching would not be limited to a particular type of material or an exact thickness value.
As previously discussed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the amount of hardness coating along the bending axis, including edge surfaces of the glass substrate completely free of any hard coating material, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending properties (e.g., parallel plate distance in a folding test). 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).
Applicant argues, “Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that Bae does not note any ability to achieve the claimed parallel plate distance, let alone provide any teaching that disposing the ‘coating layer’ described therein only on a single surface of the substrate leads to achieving the claimed parallel plate distance. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection has relied on impermissible hindsight in view of the instant application” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s recited “parallel plate distance” is a measure of the foldability of the apparatus. Therefore, the teachings of Bae et al. is pertinent Applicant’s recited parallel plate distance.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues, “Despite disagreeing with the rejection, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite that ‘the hard coating [comprises] an inorganic material and exhibits a hardness of greater than or equal to 12 GigaPascals as measured by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness test.’ Applicant cannot find any teachings in Kim on how to modify the example coatings described therein to achieve the claimed hardness” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As previously discussed, the primary reference of Kim et al., explicitly teaches working example 2 multilayer (hard coating) has a hardness of 12.2 GPa (Table 3) as measured by a Berkovich Indenter Hardness test (pg. 17).
Applicant argues, “Allan is not cited as curing, and does not cure, the above-noted deficiencies of Kim and Bae” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Applicant argues, “As noted herein above, claim 2 has been amended to recite that the ‘hard coating comprises a stack that is 700 nm or more.’ Applicant cannot find any teachings in Kim of such a stack thickness…Kim therefore discloses the following maximum thicknesses for each of the layers: LY1 = 94 nm, LY2 = 146, LY3 = 19 nm, LY4 = 30 nm, LY5 = 94 nm, LY6 = 146 nm, and LY7 = 19 nm. As such, Kim contemplates a maximum thickness for its coating of 547 nm. Applicant cannot find any teachings in Kim that would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to further increase the thickness of the coating stack to possess the recited value of 700 nm.
“Moreover, claim 2 has further amended to recite that the ‘the hard coating exhibits the hardness of greater than or equal to 15 GigaPascals as measured by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness test.’ Applicant cannot find any teachings in Kim on how to achieve such a hardness” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Kim et al. teach thickness “may” be in the disclosed ranges. The term “may” implies the disclosed ranges are preferred embodiments, and thus not a mandatory limitation.
MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Second, based on the teachings of Kim et al. and absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness (a result effective variable), 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 layer of the multilayer coating (LY1 – LY4) taught by Kim et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a hardness layer of desired durability (i.e., hardness), scratch resistance, and optical properties. 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).
Third, Applicant’s specification teaches their hardness coating and/or the optical stack has a thickness of greater than or equal to 10 nm to less than or equal to 10 micrometers (specification, paragraphs [0013] & [0139]). Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated the recited hard coating thickness of greater than or equal to 700 nm to be critical.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that low reflectance does not inherently result from only the materials selected but rather an overall configuration of the stack (coating process to determine index and thickness of each of the layers). Indeed, below is a machine translation of the Tables in Kim describing the optical performance of Kim’s examples.
“As such, Kim explicitly suggests that the examples described therein do not possess the photopic percentage reflectance. The reflectivity of Examples 1 – 2 is at least 4.5% The fact that something is called an ‘anti-reflective coating’ does not mean that such a coating inherently meets the claimed phototopic percentage reflectance. In view of this, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has filed to provide an adequate basis to rely on inherency in rejecting claim 8” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s translation provided in the remarks filed 6/25/2026 is illegible.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, “reflectivity” and “photopic average reflectance” are not equivalent. Reflectance is the measured fraction of incident light or radiation that a surface reflects, which varies depending on the angle of incidence, surface texture, and thickness. Reflectivity is an intrinsic material property that describes the theoretical maximum reflectance of a substance when it is infinitely thick, perfectly flat, and smooth (i.e., does not vary depending on the angle of incidence, surface texture, and thickness).
As such, Tables 1 – 2 of Kim et al. do not disclose photopic average reflectance, which Applicant teaches in their specification (paragraph [0148]) is also referred to as the luminance, or tristimulus Y value of reflected light, according to known conventions, for example CIE (CIELAB) color space conventions.
Applicant argues, “In rejecting claim 30, the Office equates a combination of the layers LY5, LY6, and LY7 (which has a thickness of up to 0.249 µm) to the claimed ‘scratch-resistant layer.’ See Office Action, pages 10 – 11. Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, Applicant has amended claim 30 to recite that ‘the scratch-resistant layer comprises a thickness that is greater than or equal to 0.3 µm to less than or equal to 3 micrometers.’ Kim does not provide any reason to increase the thickness of layers LY5, LY6, and LY7 described therein. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that this amendment obviates the Examiner’s interpretation of Kim” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Kim et al. teach thickness “may” be in the disclosed ranges. The term “may” implies the disclosed ranges are preferred embodiments, and thus not a mandatory limitation.
MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Second, based on the teachings of Kim et al. and absent a showing of criticality with respect to thickness (a result effective variable), 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 layer of the scratch resistant coatings (LY5 – LY7) taught by Kim et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a hardness layer of desired durability (i.e., hardness), scratch resistance, and optical properties. 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).
Third, Applicant’s specification teaches their scratch resistant layer may have a thickness of 0.05 µm to 5 µm (specification, paragraphs [0016] & [00237]). Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated the recited thickness for the scratch-resistance layer of 0.3 µm to less than or equal to 3 micrometers to be critical.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 31, “In calculating the percentage, the Office appears to rely on the minimum substrate thickness (1 µm) provided by Kim. This completely ignores that claim 1 recites that ‘the substrate thickness is from greater than or equal to 20 micrometers to less than or equal to less than or equal to 300 micrometers.’ The maximum value for the combined thickness of layers LY5, LY6, LY7 taught by Kim (0.249 µm) is only about 1.2% of the claimed lower bound for the substrate thickness. Kim does not provide any teachings that would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the combination of features recited in independent claim 31” (Remarks, Pg. 14).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Claim 31 is dependent on claim 30, which was amended by Applicant in the claims filed June 25, 2026. As discussed above, the rejection of claim 30 has been modified to respond to the amendment of claim 30. Therefore, the rejection of claim 31 has also been modified as a result of the amendment of claim 30. Applicant is directed to the new rejection of claim 31 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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