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
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, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manley (US 2021/0187910) in view of Hinata (WO2019/082592) and further in view of Kim (KR 101620375).
Regarding claim 1, Manley teaches a manufacturing method of a display device (p.0007), comprising: forming a laminate by laminating resins (218) in direct contact with first and second side surfaces of a glass, wherein the first and second side surfaces are opposite surfaces (p.0034-0036; as shown in Fig. 5A-5B and as explained in paragraph 0034, the protective material layer 218 is in direct contact with surfaces 202 over the laser damaged regions 210 before being removed to create openings 216; the protective material layer 218 is also in direct contact with surfaces 204, 206 and 208, wherein 202 is opposite to 204, and 206 is opposite to 208); removing the resins (p.0034-0036; Fig. 5A-5B); separating the laminate into a plurality of laminates by performing primary etching using an etching liquid composition (p.0037; Fig. 6).
Manley fails to disclose removing the resins along a laser irradiation line by irradiating a laser on the laminate; vertically stacking the plurality of laminates; and performing secondary chemical etching on a structure formed by stacking the plurality of laminates; and wherein in the separating the laminate into the plurality of laminates through primary etching by using the etching liquid composition, a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass.
Hinata teaches a manufacturing method of a display device (title; abstract) wherein a resin layer (161, 163B) is removed along a laser irradiation line by irradiating a laser on the laminate (as shown in Fig. 17; p.0110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified method of Manley, with Hinata, by removing the resins by laser irradiation, as an alternative to the removal process of Manley. POSITA would have known that removing the resins by laser irradiation would have yield a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as faster removal process.
Manley and Hinata combined fail to disclose vertically stacking the plurality of laminates; and performing secondary chemical etching on a structure formed by stacking the plurality of laminates; and wherein in the separating the laminate into the plurality of laminates through primary etching by using the etching liquid composition, a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass.
Kim teaches vertically stacking the plurality of laminates (p.0037; p.0016); and performing chemical etching on a structure formed by stacking the plurality of laminates (p.0037; p.0016), and wherein in the separating the laminate into the plurality of laminates through primary etching by using the etching liquid composition, a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass (p.0059; p.0063; p.0076; it is commonly known that to avoid cracking or damage, the curvature radius is commonly larger than the glass thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified method of Manley and Hinata, with Kim, by vertically stacking the plurality of laminates and performing a secondary chemical etching, to be able to etch all the plurality of laminates at once, and prevent bending or breakage of the laminates during handling, and having a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass which is larger than a thickness of the glass to avoid cracking or damage. POSITA would have known that vertically stacking the plurality of laminates and performing a secondary chemical etching would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as simultaneous etching and prevent bending or breakage of the laminates during handling. POSITA would have known that having a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass which is larger than a thickness of the glass would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as avoid cracking or damage.
Regarding claim 4, Manley, Hinata and Kim combined teach the manufacturing method of the display device as set forth above, wherein, after the separating the laminate into a plurality of laminates by primary etching the laminate using the etching liquid composition, a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass after the secondary chemical etching is performed on the structure on which the plurality of laminates are stacked (Kim; p.0016; p.0037; p.0105; when thickness is reduced, the curvature radius is also reduced).
Regarding claim 6, Manley, Hinata and Kim combined teach the manufacturing method of the display device as set forth above, wherein, after the performing of the secondary chemical etching on the structure formed by stacking the plurality of laminates, there is a difference between a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass and a thickness of the glass (Kim; p.0016; p.0037; p.0105; Fig. 17).
Manley, Hinata and Kim combined fail to disclose wherein the difference between a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass and a thickness of the glass is within 10 %.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed difference range between a curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass and a thickness of the glass, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Manley, Hinata and Kim combined teach the manufacturing method of the display device as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the glass is about 30 um to about 100 um (Manley; 100 um; p.0028).
Regarding claim 8, Manley, Hinata and Kim combined teach the manufacturing method of the display device as set forth above, further comprising, after the performing of the secondary chemical etching on the structure formed by stacking the plurality of laminates, separately separating the glass by removing the resin from the structure (Kim; p.0107).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Manley does not teach applying the resin to the glass substrate and then using a laser beam to irradiate the resin followed by etching it. The laser beam of Manley does not impinge on the protective resin, which is applied to the glass substrate only after the laser beam has etched the glass substrate. Manley does not teach that the curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass. Manley therefore does not teach all elements of the claimed invention. Manley further does not disclose a configuration where both opposite surfaces of the glass substrate 200 are in direct contact with resin (see FIG. 5B of Manley). Furthermore, claim 1 includes a configuration where "the first and second surfaces of the glass are opposite surfaces” and "the resin is in direct contact with the first and second surfaces of the glass," thereby preventing thickness reduction of the glass during the primary etching step that separates the laminate into a plurality of pieces. However, Kim discloses a configuration that reduces the thickness of the original glass substrate during primary etching (see FIG. 5 of Kim).” on remarks page 6, lines 27-30 and page 7, lines 1-10.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Manley discloses an example wherein instead of using a mask over laser damaged regions 210, the protective material over laser damaged regions 210 is removed after the deposition process to create openings 216 (para. 0034). Manley also discloses resins (218) in direct contact with first and second side surfaces of a glass, wherein the first and second side surfaces are opposite surfaces (p.0034-0036; as shown in Fig. 5A-5B and as explained in paragraph 0034, the protective material layer 218 is in direct contact with surfaces 202 over the laser damaged regions 210 before being removed to create openings 216; the protective material layer 218 is also in direct contact with surfaces 204, 206 and 208, wherein 202 is opposite to 204, and 206 is opposite to 208).
Applicant further argues that “In the first instance, Hinata also does not teach that the curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass. Manley combined with Hinata does not teach the very same element -notably that the curvature radius of the first and second side surfaces of the glass is larger than a thickness of the glass. Another issue with combining Hinata with Manley is that the invention of Manley would be destroyed by doing so… If the resin of Hinata is applied to the glass substrate of Manley before subjecting the glass substrate to laser irradiation, then the electronic devices 214 will not be formed on the surface of the glass substrate (as required by Manley), but rather on the resin surface (because the glass surface is already covered by the resin of Hinata). Forming the electronic device 214 on the resin surface will cause the electronic device to cease to function as intended. One of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Hinata with Manley because the electronic devices 214 of Manley will cease to function as intended… While Kim may teach stacking the laminates and then performing chemical etching, it does not rectify the deficiency of the combination of Hinata with Manley. In other words, it does not provide a reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would dispose a resin on the glass substrate prior to using a laser beam to irradiate the substrate. Kim thus does not correct for the deficiency of Hinata combined with Manley and therefore the combination does not teach all elements of the claimed invention… While Kim may teach stacking the laminates and then performing chemical etching, it does not rectify the deficiency of the combination of Hinata with Manley. In other words, it does not provide a reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would dispose a resin on the glass substrate prior to using a laser beam to irradiate the substrate. Kim thus does not correct for the deficiency of Hinata combined with Manley and therefore the combination does not teach all elements of the claimed invention… The Applicants are confused by the Examiner’s logic. FIGs. 3 — 4 depict the sequence of laser irradiation on the substrate of Manley. These figures are depicted below. FIG. 3 shows that the substrate 200 having surfaces 202, 204, 206 and 208 (without the protective coating of Hinata) are first etched using laser beam 212. Following the laser etching, damage 210 occurs to the substrate 200. (See FIG. 3 below)... Manley therefore teaches using an uncoated glass substrate to perform the etching on. The claimed invention in contrast requires “forming a laminate by laminating resins on first and second side surfaces of a glass”. The Examiner compensates for this deficiency of Manley by suggesting that Hinata teaches applying a coating to the surface of the substrate prior to etching. This would result in the electronics 214 being formed on a resin coating and not on the glass substrate of Manley as follows (shown in a simplified diagram).” on remarks page 8, lines 9-14 and 22-28, page 9, lines 10-15 and 28-32, page 10, lines 3-6 and page 11, lines 1-3. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Manley already teaches forming a laminate by laminating resins (218) and removing the resins (“In another example, the protective material over laser damaged regions 210 is removed after the deposition process to create openings 216”; p.0034-0036; Fig. 5A-5B). Manley was combined with Hinata to disclose removing a resin layer (Hinata; 161, 163B) along a laser irradiation line by irradiating a laser on the laminate (Hinata; as shown in Fig. 17; p.0110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified method of Manley, with Hinata, by removing the resins by laser irradiation, as an alternative to the removal process of Manley. POSITA would have known that removing the resins by laser irradiation would have yield a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as faster removal process.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
10/26/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights