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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 21-29 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higano et al. (US PGPub 2018/0138257; hereinafter “Higano”) in view of and Oh et al. (US PGPub 2016/0037639; hereinafter “Oh”) and Chen et al. (US PGPub 2016/0197293; hereinafter “Chen”).
Re claim 1: Higano teaches (e.g. figs. 1, 3, 4 and 31) a mother substrate for display panel, the mother substrate comprising: a first substrate (insulating substrate 10, 11 e.g. paragraph 53) including: a panel area (display area A1; e.g. paragraph 43); and a peripheral area (non-display areas A2 excluding the right side of A2D and excluding the area overlapping CG as shown in figs. 1 and 4; e.g. paragraph 43) surrounding at least one side of the panel area (A1); a second substrate (first auxiliary base 21, glass CG; e.g. paragraph 62) on a first surface (top surface of 11; hereinafter “1S”) of the first substrate (10, 11); a first support member (first portion 25 of second auxiliary base 22) on a second surface (bottom surface of 10; hereinafter “2S”) of the first substrate (10, 11) opposite to the first surface (1S) of the first substrate (10, 11) in a first direction (Z1 direction of fig. 4), the first support member (25) overlapping the panel area (A1) of the first substrate (10, 11) in a plan view; and a second support member (second portion 26 of second auxiliary base 22) disposed on the second surface (2S) of the first substrate (10, 11), the second support member (26) overlapping the peripheral area (A2D of A2) of the first substrate (10) in the plan view.
Higano is silent as to explicitly teaching the peripheral area being configured for removal from the mother substrate to obtain the display panel the first support member including a first material that reflects light.
Oh teaches (e.g. figs. 1A,1B) the peripheral area (outermost peripheral edge of mother substrate which is discarded as shown in fig. 1A; hereinafter “PA”) being configured for removal (PA is removed along planned cutting lines PCLs) from the mother substrate (mother substrate 10; e.g. paragraph 45) to obtain the display panel (display panels 100; e.g. paragraph 46).
Chen teaches (e.g. fig. 2) the first support member (1, 3, 4) including a first material that reflects light (reflective layer 3 reflects light; e.g. paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the mother substrate for forming display panels in a batch process as taught by Oh, and to use the reflective layer in the support member as taught by Chen in the device of Higano in order to have the predictable result of using a processing method which is faster to make and assemble multiple displays at the same time, and in order to have the predictable result of improving light extraction efficiency of the display device (see paragraph 58 of Chen), respectively.
Re claim 2: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the first support member (25) and the second support member (26) include a same material (22 is made of resin such as PET; e.g. paragraph 63).
Re claim 3: Higano in view of Chen teaches the mother substrate of claim 2, wherein the second support member (26) include the first material (3 of Chen).
Re claim 4: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, further comprising: a display structure (pixel elements OLED1-OLED3 are formed between 10, 11 and 21; hereinafter “DS”) between the first substrate (10, 11) and the second substrate (21), the display structure (DS) overlapping the panel area (A1) in the plan view.
Re claim 5: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the first support member (25) overlaps the display structure (DS) on the first substrate (10, 11) in the plan view.
Re claim 6: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the second support member (26) does not overlap the display structure (DS) on the first substrate (10) in the plan view.
Re claim 7: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein a length of the first support member (25) in a second direction (X2 of fig. 4) that intersects the first direction (Z1) is greater than (DS structure stops before the segment drawn in fig. 4, therefore 25 is greater in length in the X2 direction than the length of DS) or substantially equal to a length of the display structure (DS) in the second direction (X2).
Re claim 8: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the second support member (26) is spaced apart from the first support member (25) in a second direction (X2) that intersects the first direction (Z1).
Re claim 9: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 8, wherein a length of the first support member (25) in the second direction (X2) is greater than a length of the second support member (26) in the second direction (X2).
Re claim 10: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first support member (25) in the first direction (Z1) is smaller than a thickness of the first substrate (10, 11) in the first direction (Z1).
Re claim 11: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first support member (25) in the first direction (Z1) is substantially equal (25 and 26 are formed from the same material layer 22) to a thickness of the second support member (26) in the first direction (Z1).
Re claim 21: Higano in view of Oh teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the first substrate (mother substrate 10 of Oh) includes two panel areas (a first display panel 100 in the top left corner of fig. 1A of Oh, hereinafter “P1”, and the panel 100 to the right of the first panel, hereinafter “P2”), the panel area (area of display device 11 of Oh) being included among the two panel areas (P1, P2), and the peripheral area (area of PCL) being interposed between the two panel areas (P1, P2), and each of the two panel areas (P1, P2) including a display structure (display device 11 of Oh) configured to emit light.
Re claim 22: Higano in view of Chen teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the first substrate (10, 11) includes a rigid material (glass substrate 1 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the glass substrate as taught by Chen in the device of Higano in order to have the predictable result of using a well-known rigid substrate in an application which requires a rigid display.
Re claim 23: Higano in view of Oh and Chen teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the first substrate (10, 11) includes glass (glass substrate 1 of Chen, glass mother substrate 10 of Oh, e.g. paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the glass substrate as taught by Chen in the device of Higano in order to have the predictable result of using a well-known rigid substrate in an application which requires a rigid display.
Re claim 24: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the second substrate (21, CG) includes glass (CG).
Re claim 25: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the panel area (A1) is a first panel area; the peripheral area (non-display areas A2 excluding the right side of A2D and excluding the area overlapping CG as shown in figs. 1 and 4; e.g. paragraph 43) is a first peripheral area; and the second substrate (21, CG) includes a second peripheral area (area of CG which overlaps with A2D) that does not overlap the display structure (DS) in the plan view.
Re claim 26: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 25, wherein the first peripheral area (non-display areas A2 excluding the right side of A2D and excluding the area overlapping CG as shown in figs. 1 and 4; e.g. paragraph 43) overlaps the second peripheral area (area of CG which overlaps with A2D) in the plan view.
Re claim 27: Higano in view of Chen teaches the mother substrate of claim 26, wherein the first substrate (10, 11) includes a rigid material (glass substrate 1 of Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the glass substrate as taught by Chen in the device of Higano in order to have the predictable result of using a well-known rigid substrate in an application which requires a rigid display.
Re claim 28: Higano in view of Chen teaches the mother substrate of claim 27, wherein the rigid material is glass (glass substrate 1 of Chen).
Re claim 29: Higano teaches the mother substrate of claim 28, wherein the second substrate (21, CG) includes glass (CG).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights