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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 3/12/2026.
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, 3-8, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namkung et al. (US 2017/0045914 A1) in view of Nanai et al. (US 2006/0214192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Namkung discloses a manufacturing method of a display device comprising:
providing a display unit (DP in Fig. 13) including a plurality of thin film transistors (one of which is shown as TFT1 in Fig. 4) on a surface of a substrate (SUB1) comprising polymer (¶ 0068); and
a first protection layer (P2 in Fig. 13) and a second protection layer (P1) on an opposing surface of the substrate which is opposite to the surface of the substrate;
wherein the first protection layer includes a first inclination part at an end thereof (see annotated figure below), an entirety of a surface of the first inclination part facing away from the substate being nonlinear and smooth, and
wherein the second protection layer includes a second inclination part at an end thereof (see annotated figure below), an entirety of a surface of the second inclination part facing away from the substrate being nonlinear and smooth; and
wherein the end of the first protection layer and the end of the second protection layer are spaced apart from each other with a bending area interposed therebetween (bending portion of the display unit DP in Fig. 13).
Namkung does not disclose that the first and second protection layers are formed by coating and curing a photo-hardening resins or depositing the resin through an inkjet process.
Nanai discloses that protection layers in display devices may be formed from curing a photo-hardening resin (¶ 0047). Nanani also discloses that protection layers may be coated by an inkjet process (¶ 0047).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known protection layer composition as taught by Namkung for with that of Nanai and the results of the substitution would have been predictable in providing protection to the display unit. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
There was a benefit to using an inkjet process to coat the material in that an inkjet process allows for accurate placement of the material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to coat and cure a photo-hardening resin on an opposing surface of the substrate of Namkung to form the first and second protection layers wherein the photo-hardening resin is coated through an inkjet process for this benefit.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Namkung discloses that the substrate includes a first flat area (left SA in Fig. 6A), a second flat area (right SA), and a bending area (FA) disposed between the first flat area and the second flat area;
the first protection layer overlaps the first flat area; and
the second protection layer overlaps the second flat area.
Regarding claim 4, the first inclination part has a first inclination angle with the opposing surface of the substrate,
the second inclination part has a second inclination angle with the opposing surface of the substrate, and
each of the first inclination angle and the second inclination angle is greater than or equal to about 10 degrees and less than or equal to about 90 degrees (¶ 0089-0090 of Namkung).
Regarding claim 5, Namkung discloses a range for the first and second inclination angles which overlaps the claimed range (¶ 0089-0090). Since prior art range overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Namkung does not explicitly disclose the amount of strain incurred by the components. However, as the composition, structure, and shape of the components of Namkung in view of Nanani is consistent with those claimed, they should inherently have the same properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7, Namkung does not explicitly disclose the amount of strain incurred by the components. However, as the composition, structure, and shape of the components of Namkung in view of Nanani is consistent with those claimed, they should inherently have the same properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 8, the first inclination part is formed at a part where the first flat area is adjacent to the bending area, and the second inclination part is formed at a part where the second flat area is adjacent to the bending area (see Fig. 6A of Namkung).
Regarding claim 16, the first protection layer and the second protection layer are spaced apart from each other, and a space between the first protection layer and the second protection layer overlaps the bending area (see Fig. 6A of Namkung).
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to control an inclination degree of the end of the first and second protection layers in the method of the combination by adjusting an amount of droplets of the photo-hardening resin discharged to the substrate as the ends of the first and second protection layers have less material per unit length than the remainder of the protection layers (see Fig. 6A of Namkung).
Regarding claim 18, Namkung discloses that the first and second protection layers having a separate adhesive layer is optional (“may” in ¶ 0062). As such, Namkung teaches an embodiment in which the first and second protection layers are provided without a separate adhesive layer.
Claim(s) 2, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namkung et al. (US 2017/0045914 A1) in view of Nanai et al. (US 2006/0214192 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Shi (US 2019/0229298).
Regarding claim 2, Nanai does not explicitly disclose that the inkjet process uses a nozzle disposing drops.
Shi teaches an inkjet process using a nozzle which discharges droplets (¶ 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use a nozzle discharging droplets for the inkjet process in order to increase the accuracy of the placement of the material.
In the method of the combination, the coating of the photo-hardening resin includes coating the photo- hardening resin by a printing device including a nozzle, the nozzle discharges droplets of the photo-hardening resin, the display device includes a first flat area (left SA in Fig. 6A of Namkung) in which the display unit is provided, the bending area adjacent to the first flat area, and a second flat area (right SA) adjacent to the bending area. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have the nozzle discharge fewer droplets of the photo-hardening resin from the first flat area toward the bending area and discharge fewer droplets of the photo-hardening resin from the second flat area toward the bending area as the ends of the first and second protection layers have less material per unit length than the remainder of the protection layers (see Fig. 6A of Namkung).
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have an amount of the discharged droplet be lower when the printing device is disposed at the side close to the bending area as the ends of the first and second protection layers have less material per unit length than the remainder of the protection layers (see Fig. 6A of Namkung).
Regarding claim 20, as the second protection layer is a continuous structure overlapping the second flat area, the droplets discharged to form the second protection layer at each position of the second flat area are combined with each other. Further, as the composition of the droplets and the deposition process are consistent with that claimed, the droplets should inherently flow toward the bending area to form the second inclination part as claimed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namkung et al. (US 2017/0045914 A1) in view of Nanai et al. (US 2006/0214192 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0300096 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nanai does not disclose the photo-hardening resin to comprise a composition as claimed.
However, it was well-known in the art to form photo-hardening resins from a combination of a polyurethane and an acryl-based resin (¶ 0089 of Kim). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the photo-hardening resin from a combination of a polyurethane and an acryl-based resin as its function was known and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive as they relate to the previous mapping of Namkung. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different mapping of Namkung as discussed above, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights