DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/26 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 26, 27, 33-35, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igeta et al. (US 2016/0041436, “Igeta”) in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0388783, “Kang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 33-35, Igeta teaches an electronic device having a display panel (e.g., Fig. 3, [0050]) having a protective film disposed on the rear surface (layer 12, having base layer 12st, Fig. 7, [0069], and see [0084], Figs. 4 and 5), having a middle area (see Figs. 3-5, display area DP, [0045], [0069]) first side area extending from a first edge of a middle are, a second side area that intersects a first edge of a middle area, and corner portions extending form the side portions (see Fig. 5, [0072], and see also Figs. 3 and 4 showing layers 12 existing in middle, side, and corner portions). Igeta shows implementations wherein layer 12 completely fills the entirely of the corner areas. For example, Figs. 6 and 7 show implementations wherein a corner area of a base substrate 12 (or 12st) is covered in portions by opening slits that are formed in the insulating film OC over the substrate layer 12 (Figs. 6, 7, [0080] – [0088]). These slits are not formed through layer 12st and thus layer 12st, which exists in the corner area, may be considered to correspond to the claimed first layer that entirely fills the corner area (Figs. 5-7, [0107], [0080] - [0088]). Igeta additionally teaches the inclusion of additional layers that do not completely cover the corner areas (see, e.g., Fig. 7, OC layer not completely covering layer 12st, OC layer having slits therein, [0069]). The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Igeta fails to teach the inclusion of a heat dissipation layer in the cover protective film. However, in the same field of endeavor of cover layers for display devices ([0003] – [0005]), Kang teaches to include a heat dissipation layer in a cover window in order to effectively dissipate heat emanating from an underlying pixel array, for example ([0009], [0010], [0076]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included such a metallic heat dissipation layer in order to effectively dissipate heat emanating from an underlying pixel array, for example ([0009], [0010], [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Igeta additionally teaches that the second layer (i.e., layer 12f or OC, Fig. 7, [0069], [0072], Fig. 5) may overlap the middle areas, the first and second side areas of the first layer and expose a corner of the first layer (see Figs. 3-5, OC corner areas having slits to expose underlying layer 12st, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Igeta additionally teaches that the corner area may comprise first and second areas (see, e.g., Figs. 7 – 9, slit sections and sections that do not have slits). Igeta additionally teaches that the second layer (i.e., layer 12f or OC, Fig. 7, [0069], [0072], Fig. 5) may overlap the middle areas, the first and second side areas of the first layer and expose a corner of the first layer (see Figs. 3-5, OC corner areas having slits to expose underlying layer 12st, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Igeta additionally teaches that the second area may be spaced apart from the first side area and the second side area (see Fig. 8, wherein the slits in the OC layer have the effect of making different areas or sections in the corner area) and the first area may surround at least a portion of the second area (see Figs. 8 and 9). The Examiner additionally notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966). In this case adjusting the shape of the slits so as to provide areas that area spaced apart and so one surrounds another would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art so as to improve water resistance in the display device ([0006]).
PNG
media_image2.png
650
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Igeta additionally teaches that the first area may comprise first and second line areas wherein the first line area may be between the first and second side areas (i.e., in the corner, see Figs. 8 and 9) and a second line area may be between a second side area and a second area in the corner area itself (see, generally Figs. 8 and 9). Additionally, the adjustment of the slit lines in the corner area would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Igeta additionally teaches that the corner areas may have first and second areas, each having line and space areas extending in first and second directions and being disposed alternatively (see, e.g., Figs. 8 and 9, having slits disposed alternatively and extending in radial and circumferential directions). Additionally, the adjustment of the slit lines in the corner area would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Igeta additionally teaches that the shapes in the corner section may have a sectoral or radial shape, having radial and circumferential directions (see Figs. 8 and 9). Additionally, the adjustment of the slit lines in the corner area would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Igeta additionally teaches sections wherein the width of each of the line areas in a first direction (see Fig. 8 wherein the width of a section increases for at least one of the shapes in a first direction). Additionally, the adjustment of the slit lines in the corner area would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Igeta additionally teaches that the substrate layer may include an additional covering oriented film layer that would cover the corner areas and would cover areas exposed by the slits in layers 12f or OC (e.g., [0059]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Igeta (Kang) additionally teaches that the heat dissipation layer may include a metal layer (Kang, [0010]).
Regarding claim 27, Kang additionally teaches an embodiment wherein the second layer may be configured to expose an entirety of a corner area of the first layer (see Fig. 9, wherein an entire corner portion is exposed). The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 9 and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igeta in view of Kang as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2017/0012026, “Choi”).
Regarding claim 9, Igeta teaches a protective film (layer 11, having base layer 11, Fig. 12, [0060] – [0065]), having a middle area (see Figs. 3-5, display area DP, [0045], [0069]) a first side area extending from a first edge of a middle are, a second side area that intersects a first edge of a middle area, and corner portions extending form the side portions (see Fig. 5, [0072], and see also Figs. 3 and 4 showing layers 11 existing in middle, side, and corner portions). Igeta additionally teaches that layers 11 may include additional layers that do not completely cover the corner areas (see, e.g., Figs. 10 and 12, BM layer not completely covering layer 11, [0107]). Igeta additionally teaches that the first layer may comprise a light-shielding layer (black matrix layer, see Fig. 12, BM, [0064]), a layer that may be considered to be a cushion layer (e.g., sealing layer or member SLp, Fig. 12, [0067]) and an insulating layer between those layers (see Fig. 12, layer OC1, [0064] may be a resin material). Igeta fails to specifically teach what the resin layer OC1 is made of, however in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0005]), Choi teaches that a PET is a suitable material out of which to make an electrically insulating material (see, e.g., [0047]). It therefore would have been obvious, in the absence of a specific teaching by Igeta, to have used a PET as the insulating material of layer of Igeta in order to provide sufficient insulation and because the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (see MPEP 2143, and see Park, [0047]).
Regarding claims 28 – 30, Igeta teaches a protective film (layer 11, having base layer 11, Fig. 12, [0060] – [0065]), having a middle area (see Figs. 3-5, display area DP, [0045], [0069]) a first side area extending from a first edge of a middle are, a second side area that intersects a first edge of a middle area, and corner portions extending form the side portions (see Fig. 5, [0072], and see also Figs. 3 and 4 showing layers 11 existing in middle, side, and corner portions). Igeta additionally teaches that layers 11 may include additional layers that do not completely cover the corner areas (see, e.g., Figs. 10 and 12, BM layer not completely covering layer 11, [0107]). Igeta additionally teaches that the first layer may comprise a light-shielding layer (black matrix layer, see Fig. 12, BM, [0064]), a layer that may be considered to be a cushion layer (e.g., sealing layer or member SLp, Fig. 12, [0067]) and an insulating layer between those layers (see Fig. 12, layer OC1, [0064] may be a resin material). Igeta shows implementations wherein layer 12 completely fills the entirely of the corner areas. For example, Figs. 6 and 7 show implementations wherein a corner area of a base substrate 12 (or 12st) is covered in portions by opening slits that are formed in the insulating film OC over the substrate layer 12 (Figs. 6, 7, [0080] – [0088]). These slits are not formed through layer 12st and thus layer 12st, which exists in the corner area, may be considered to correspond to the claimed first layer that entirely fills the corner area (Figs. 5-7, [0107], [0080] - [0088]). Igeta additionally teaches that layers 12 may include additional layers that do not completely cover the corner areas (see, e.g., Fig. 7, OC layer not completely covering layer 12st, [0069]). The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966). Igeta fails to teach the inclusion of a heat dissipation layer in the cover protective film. However, in the same field of endeavor of cover layers for display devices ([0003] – [0005]), Kang teaches to include a heat dissipation layer in a cover window in order to effectively dissipate heat emanating from an underlying pixel array, for example ([0009], [0010], [0076]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included such a metallic heat dissipation layer in order to effectively dissipate heat emanating from an underlying pixel array, for example ([0009], [0010], [0076]). Igeta fails to specifically teach what the resin layer OC1 is made of, however in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0005]), Choi teaches that a PET is a suitable material out of which to make an electrically insulating material (see, e.g., [0047]). It therefore would have been obvious, in the absence of a specific teaching by Igeta, to have used a PET as the insulating material of layer of Igeta in order to provide sufficient insulation and because the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (see MPEP 2143, and see Park, [0047]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Igeta (Kang) additionally teaches that the heat dissipation layer may include a metal layer (Kang, [0010]).
Regarding claim 32, Kang additionally teaches an embodiment wherein the second layer may be configured to expose an entirety of a corner area of the first layer (see Fig. 9, wherein an entire corner portion is exposed). The Examiner notes that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Igeta fails to teach a first layer that entirely fills the corner area. The Applicant argues that, Igeta teaches that its layer corresponding to the claimed first layer has slits or cuts in it and therefore cannot be said to entirely fill the corner area. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above, Igeta shows implementations wherein layer 12 completely fills the entirely of the corner areas. For example, Figs. 6 and 7 show implementations wherein a corner area of a base substrate 12 (or 12st) is covered in portions by opening slits that are formed in the insulating film OC over the substrate layer 12 (Figs. 6, 7, [0080] – [0088]). These slits are not formed through layer 12st and thus layer 12st, which exists in the corner area, may be considered to correspond to the claimed first layer that entirely fills the corner area (Figs. 5-7, [0107], [0080] - [0088]).
Therefore, claims 1-10 and 26-35 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782