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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 11 May 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 6, and 7 are amended and claims 21-23 are newly added. The Office withdraws the drawing objection, the section 112(a) rejections, and the section 112(b) indefiniteness rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 19 March 2026 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicants argue on pages 9-14 that Xiao, Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee’426 neither individually nor in combination teach the subject matter newly added to independent claim 1. Amended claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Xiao, Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee’426 and recites (as identified by Applicants):
the second portion being not above the third step, not overlapping the second side portion, and defining an edge of the second substrate which is furthest from the display area in a direction and faces the side surface of the second side portion of the case member,
wherein the second portion of the second substrate is attached on the second step via an adhesive member which is disposed between the second portion of the second substrate and the second step in a sectional view,
wherein both the edge of the second substrate, and the adhesive member face the side surface of the second side portion.
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Kawaguchi teaches in Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0003, 0004, 0036, 0046] a second portion (portion of 5/6/7 disposed directly over leftmost side of case member 4) [of a second substrate (5, 6, 7)] being not above a third step (upper leftmost portion of case member 4), not overlapping a second side portion (side portion of case member 4 directly facing edge of 5/6/ 7) [of a case member (4)], and defining an edge of a second substrate (5/6/7) which is furthest from a display area (area directly above 3) in a direction (horizontal) and 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), wherein both the edge of the second substrate (5/6/7), and an adhesive member (14) face a side surface of a second side portion (portion of 14 facing 5/6/7) [of the case member (4)]. Lee ‘426 teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0026] a second portion (portion of 127 directly overlapping case member 111) of a second substrate (127) is attached on a second step (portion of 111 on which 127, 129 rest) via an adhesive member (129) which is disposed between the second portion (portion of 127 directly overlapping case member 111) of the second substrate (127) and the second step (portion of 111 on which 127, 129 rest) in a sectional view. The motivations for combining these teachings with those of Xiao and Lee are identified below with respect to the rejection of 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, 10, and 21-23 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) disposed below the first substrate layer (22), 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) protruding upward from the upper surface of the first side portion (1st side portion), 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 the second side portion (2nd side portion) having a side surface extending upward from an end of the upper surface of the first side portion (1st 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},
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 the second portion being not above the third step, not overlapping the second side portion, and defining an edge of the second substrate which is furthest from the display area in a direction and faces the side surface of the second side portion of the case member, wherein both the edge of the second substrate, and the adhesive member face the side surface of the second side portion.
In an analogous art, Kawaguchi teaches in Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0003, 0004, 0036, 0046] a second portion (portion of 5/6/7 disposed directly over leftmost side of case member 4) [of a second substrate (5, 6, 7)] being not above a third step (upper leftmost portion of case member 4), not overlapping a second side portion (side portion of case member 4 directly facing edge of 5/6/ 7) [of a case member (4)], and defining an edge of a second substrate (5/6/7) which is furthest from a display area (area directly above 3) in a direction (horizontal) and 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), wherein both the edge of the second substrate (5/6/7), and an adhesive member (14) face a side surface of a second side portion (portion of 14 facing 5/6/7) [of the 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, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, 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 via an adhesive member which is disposed between the second portion of the second substrate and the second step in a sectional view.
In an analogous art, Lee ‘426 teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0026] a second portion (portion of 127 directly overlapping case member 111) of a second substrate (127) is attached on a second step (portion of 111 on which 127, 129 rest) via an adhesive member (129) which is disposed between the second portion (portion of 127 directly overlapping case member 111) of the second substrate (127) and the second step (portion of 111 on which 127, 129 rest) in a sectional view. 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, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, 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, but Xiao does not teach further comprising the adhesive member overlaps the first side portion of the case member.
Lee teaches in Fig. 1 an adhesive member (129) overlaps a first side portion (portion of 4 directly beneath 127, 129) of a case member (111). 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 further teachings of Lee ‘426, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, 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., first side portion, 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 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.
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 first side portion (1st side portion) overlaps the second substrate (21) and is disposed 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), in the plan view.
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}.
Regarding claim 21, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 1, and Xiao further teaches wherein the first substrate layer (22) is not overlapping the second side portion (2nd side portion) of the case member (10).
Regarding claim 22, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 3, and Xiao further teaches wherein a side surface of the first side portion (1st side portion) of the case member (10) protrudes upward from the upper surface of the bottom portion (11) (see annotated copy of Xiao’s Fig. 2 provided above with respect to base claim 1).
Xiao does not teach the edge of the first substrate layer faces the side surface of the first side portion.
Lee ‘426 teaches in Fig. 1 an edge (left edge) of a first substrate layer (117) faces a side surface of a first side portion (side portion of 111 directly facing 117). 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 further teachings of Lee ‘426, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, 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., first substrate layer, side portion of 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 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.
Regarding claim 23, Xiao as modified by Lee, Kawaguchi, and Lee ‘426 teaches the display device of claim 22, but Xiao does not teach necessarily wherein the edge of the first substrate layer is spaced apart from the side surface of the first side portion, along the direction.
Lee ‘426 teaches in Fig. 1 an edge of a first substrate layer (117) is spaced apart from a side surface of a first side portion (side portion of 111 directly facing 117), along a direction (horizontal). 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 further teachings of Lee ‘426, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, 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., substrate layer, side surface of a first side portion side portion of 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 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.
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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuda (US20150162353A1) teaches an electronic device includes a liquid crystal display device having a first substrate, a second substrate bonded to the first substrate, with liquid crystal material held between the first substrate and the second substrate, and an upper polarizing plate affixed to the second substrate. A protective member is disposed over the upper polarizing plate, and an adhesive member is disposed between the protective member and the upper polarizing plate without an air layer between the protective member and the upper polarizing plate. The protective member is configured as a protective cover of the electronic device.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights