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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 January 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Communication on 12 December 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 4 February 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claim 1 is amended and claims 8 and 14-20 are cancelled. The Office withdraws the indefiniteness rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 12 December 2025 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1, lines 20-24, recites “a second side portion which is further from the display area than the first side portion is from the display area, in a direction, … and a side surface of the second side portion protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. Firstly, the drawings do not illustrate a side surface of the second side portion (e.g. 430) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420). And secondly, the drawings do not illustrate both: (1) a second side portion (e.g. 430) which is further from the display area (e.g., DA) than the first side portion (e.g., 420) is from the display area (e.g., DA), in a direction (e.g., DR2) and (2) a side surface of the second side portion (e.g. 430) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420), because the second side portion (e.g. 430) cannot be both (i.e., because it is impossible): (a) farther from the display area (e.g., DA) than the first side portion (e.g., 420) is from the display area (e.g., DA) in the direction (e.g., DR2) and (b) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 20-24, recites “a second side portion which is further from the display area than the first side portion is from the display area, in a direction, … and a side surface of the second side portion protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion,” which is new matter for the following reason. The original application does not disclose both: (1) a second side portion (e.g. 430) which is further from the display area (e.g., DA) than the first side portion (e.g., 420) is from the display area (e.g., DA), in a direction (e.g., DR2) and (2) a side surface of the second side portion (e.g. 430) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420), because the second side portion (e.g. 430) cannot be both (i.e., because it is impossible): (a) farther from the display area (e.g., DA) than the first side portion (e.g., 420) is from the display area (e.g., DA) in the direction (e.g., DR2) and (b) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420). Stated another way for increased understanding, if the second side portion (e.g., 430) protrudes upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (e.g., 420), then both the first side portion (e.g., 420) and the second side portion (e.g. 430) must be equidistant from the display area (e.g., DA) in the direction (e.g., DR2). Claims 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 20-24, recites a case member comprising “a second side portion which is further from the display area than the first side portion is from the display area, in a direction, an upper surface of the second side portion forming a third step higher than the second step with respect to the bottom portion, and a side surface of the second side portion protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the section 112(a) new matter rejection applied to claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the original disclosure, this claim will be interpreted to recite a case member comprising “a second side portion which is further from the display area than the first side portion is from the display area, in a direction, an upper surface of the second side portion forming a third step higher than the second step with respect to the bottom portion, and a side surface of the second side portion.” Claims 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
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, 3-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US20240036425A1) in view of Lee et al. (US20220011623A1) and Kawaguchi et al. (US20100265425A1) and Lee et al. (US20120098426A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Xiao teaches in Fig. 2 (see annotated copy of Xiao’s Fig. 2 below) a display device comprising:
a display panel (20) including:
a first substrate layer (22) including a display area (portion of 200 directly above 23) {¶0066, 0070},
a second substrate (21) on the first substrate (22) {¶0066};
a polarizer (24) on the second substrate (21) {¶0066}; and
a case member (10) in which the display panel (20) is accommodated, the case member (10) comprising:
a bottom portion (11) facing the first substrate layer (22) and the second substrate (21) of the display panel (20), an upper surface of the bottom portion forming a first step {¶0070},
a first side portion (1st side portion) protruding upward from the upper surface of the bottom portion (11), an upper surface of the first side portion forming a second step higher than the first step with respect to the bottom portion {¶0070; see Annotated Copy of Xiao’s Fig. 2 below}, and
a second side portion (2nd side portion) which is further from the display area (portion of 200 directly above 23) than the first side portion (1st side portion) is from the display area (portion of 200 directly above 23), in a direction (horizontal direction), an upper surface of the second side portion (2nd side portion) forming a third step higher than the second step with respect to the bottom portion (11) , and a side surface of the second side portion (2nd side portion),
wherein the second substrate (21) is further from the bottom portion (11) than the first substrate layer (22) is from the bottom portion (11) and comprises:
a first portion (portion of 21 directly above 22) overlapping the first substrate layer (22) {¶0070}, and
a second portion (portion of 21 to left/right of 22) extended from the first portion (portion of 21 directly above 22) to overlap the first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member {¶0070}, and
the polarizer (24) is extended further from an edge (left/right edge) of the first substrate layer (22) and overlaps the first side portion (1st side portion) in a plan view {¶0066}.
Xiao does not teach the display area including a transistor and a light emitting device.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0067] and [0083] a display area (DA) including a transistor and a light emitting device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device based on the teachings of Lee – such that the display area includes a transistor and a light emitting device – to generate imagery for display in the display area. Lee ¶0004. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., display area, transistor, light emitting device) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Xiao as modified by Lee above does not teach a sealing portion which is between the first substrate layer and the second substrate, attaches the first substrate layer to the second substrate and seals the light emitting device.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0084] a sealing portion (SL) which is between a first substrate layer (110, ATL) and a second substrate (120), attaches the first substrate layer (110, ATL) to the second substrate (120) and seals a light emitting device {¶0084}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee based on the further teachings of Lee – such that a sealing portion is between the first substrate layer and the second substrate, and attaches the first substrate layer to the second substrate and seals the light emitting device – to seal a space between the second substrate … and the first substrate and thereby prevent damage to the element layer ATL caused by air or moisture. Lee ¶0084. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., sealing portion, first substrate layer, second substrate, light emitting device) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Xiao as modified by Lee above does not teach the second portion of the second substrate extended further from the sealing portion than the first substrate layer is extended from the sealing portion, and the edge of the first substrate layer is near the sealing portion.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0092] and [0093] a second portion (portion of 120 disposed directly over top of 210) of a second substrate (120) extends further from a sealing portion (SL) than a first substrate layer (110, ATL) is extended from the sealing portion (SL), and the edge (left edge of 110) of the first substrate layer (110, ATL) is near the sealing portion (SL). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee based on the further teachings of Lee – such that the second portion of the second substrate is extended further from the sealing portion than the first substrate layer is extended from the sealing portion, and the edge of the first substrate layer is near the sealing portion – so the first substrate need not protrude beyond the second substrate to accommodate a connector and to thereby reduce a bezel width so as to provide a higher sense of immersion to the user and … a better overall experience. Lee ¶0104, 0106. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., second substrate, first substrate layer, sealing portion) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Xiao as modified by Lee above does not teach an edge of the second substrate which is furthest from the display area in the direction faces the side surface of the second side portion of the case member.
In an analogous art, Kawaguchi teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0003, 0004, 0036] an edge of a second substrate (5/6/7) which is furthest from a display area (area directly above 3) in a direction (horizontal) faces a side surface of a second side portion (side portion of 4 directly facing edge of 5/6/ 7) of a case member (4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee based on the teachings of Kawaguchi – such that an edge of the second substrate which is furthest from the display area in the direction faces the side surface of the second side portion of the case member – so damage to the liquid crystal display panel … can be prevented by dispersing an impact to a display surface of the liquid crystal display panel through the display surface and the case member. Kawaguchi ¶0044. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., second substrate, display area, case member) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kawaguchi) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Xiao as modified by Lee and Kawaguchi above does not teach the second portion of the second substrate is attached on the second step, is not above the third step, and does not overlap the second side portion.
In an analogous art, Lee ‘426 teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0026] a second portion (portion of 119 not overlapped by 123) of a second substrate (119) is attached (indirectly) on a second step (portion of 111 on which 129 rests), is not above the third step (uppermost surface of 111), and does not overlap a second side portion (side portion of 111 directly facing side edges of 127 and 129). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee and Kawaguchi based on the teachings of Lee ‘426 – such that the second portion of the second substrate is attached on the second step, is not above the third step, and does not overlap the second side portion – so the resistance to impact of the organic light emitting display device … may be improved. Lee ‘426 ¶0043. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., second substrate, steps, sides) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lee ‘426) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, but Xiao does not teach wherein
the edge of the first substrate layer is furthest from the display area in the direction, and
the edge of the second substrate is further from the display area than the edge of the first substrate layer is from the display area, in the direction.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3 the edge (left edge) of a first substrate layer (110, ATL) is furthest from a display area (DA) in a direction (horizontal), and the edge (left edge) of a second substrate (120) is further from the display area (DA) than the edge (left edge) of the first substrate layer (110, ATL) is from the display area (DA), in the direction (horizontal). These features are a consequence of the modification of Xiao’s display device based on the teachings of Lee discussed with respect to claim 1 and the motivation for such is identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, and Xiao further teaches wherein a thickness of the second substrate (21) is equal to or greater than a thickness of the first substrate layer (22) {e.g., compare the thickness of 22 directly below 23 to the thickness of 21 disposed to left of 23}.
Examiner’s Note: “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018).
Regarding claim 5, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 4, but Xiao does not teach wherein the first substrate layer and the second substrate include glass.
Xiao teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0066] a first substrate layer (110, ATL) and a second substrate (120) include glass. These features are a consequence of the modification of Xiao’s display device based on the teachings of Lee discussed with respect to claim 1 and the motivation for such is identified with respect to claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, and Xiao further teaches further comprising a first adhesive member (30) between the first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member (10) and the second portion (portion to left/right of 22) of the second substrate (21) which overlaps the first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member (10) {¶0072}.
Regarding claim 7, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, and Xiao further teaches wherein
the case member (10) further includes
the first side portion (1st side portion) which overlaps the second substrate (21) being between (i.e., [i]n … the … interval separating, as defined by American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition) the second side portion (2nd side portion) and the first substrate layer (22) in the direction (horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 9, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, and Xiao further teaches wherein the polarizer (24) faces the first substrate layer (22) with the first portion (portion directly above 22) of the second substrate (21) therebetween {¶0066}.
Regarding claim 10, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 9, and Xiao further teaches wherein
the edge (left/right edge) of the first substrate layer (22) is furthest from the display area (portion of 200 directly above 23) in the direction (horizontal direction) {Fig. 2}, and
the polarizer (24) has an edge (left/right edge) furthest from the display area (portion of 200 directly above 23) in the direction (horizontal) {Fig. 2}.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US11086157B1).
Regarding claim 11, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, but Xiao does not teach further comprising a light blocking pattern corresponding to the edge of the second substrate which overlaps the first side portion of the case member.
In an analogous art, Zhou teaches in Fig. 2 and lines 49-55 of column 4 a light blocking pattern (108) corresponding to an edge of a second substrate (103) which overlaps a first side portion (1043) of a case member (104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 based on the teachings of Zhou – such that a light blocking pattern (having an anti-diffusion property) corresponding to an edge of the second substrate overlaps the first side portion of the case member – for the purpose of preventing the diffusion of pollution sources. Zhou lines 1-5 of col. 5.
Regarding claim 12, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, Lee ‘426, and Zhou teaches the display device of claim 11, but Xiao does not teach wherein the light blocking pattern is coplanar with the sealing portion and the first substrate layer.
However, a consequence of the modification identified in intermediate claim 11 results in Zhou’s light blocking pattern (108) being disposed between the area where Xiao’s second substrate (21) and Xiao’s first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member (10) overlap so as to bock light from moving through the gap between Xiao’s second substrate (21) and Xiao’s first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member (10). Accordingly, a further consequence of this modification is that Zhou’s light blocking pattern (108) is coplanar with the sealing portion (30) and the first substrate layer (22). And the motivation for the modification is identified with respect to claim 11.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 and Zhou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen (US20180275451A1).
Regarding claim 13, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, Lee ‘426, and Zhou teaches the display device of claim 11, but Xiao does not teach wherein the light blocking pattern is coplanar with the polarizer.
In an analogous art, Chen teaches in Fig. 2b and paragraph [0048] a light blocking pattern (1011) is coplanar with a polarizer (101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao’s display device as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, Lee ‘426, and Zhou based on the teachings of Chen – such that the light blocking pattern is coplanar with the polarizer – so the light shielding part … is formed by carbonizing the periphery of the polarizer … in a process of manufacturing the polarizer. Chen ¶0040.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891