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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 12/08/2025, in which claim 1 was amended, claims 2-5, 12-23 were withdrawn, claims 24-25 were cancelled, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2021-0131133 filed on 10/01/2021. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2021-0131133, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2021-0131133 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 have been received.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161) and Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8, Fig. 11, paragraph [0043]-[0046], [0055]-[0057] a display apparatus [DM-b] or [DM-c] comprising:
a display panel [DP] comprising a main display area [DA], auxiliary display areas [BA] disposed on edges of the main display area [DA], and a panel corner area connecting adjacent auxiliary display areas [BA];
a cover window [WD] connected to a first surface of the display panel [DP]; and
a guide film [PL1 or PL2] connected to a second surface of the display panel [DP],
a protective film [SP], wherein the guide film [PL1 or PL2] is between the protective film [SP] and the display panel [DP].
PNG
media_image1.png
446
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. fails to disclose
the auxiliary display areas being round;
the guide film comprising:
a central area;
a first side area extended to a first edge of the central area;
a second side area extended to a second edge intersecting the first edge of the central area; and
a corner area connecting the first side area to the second side area and exposing at least a part of the panel corner area.
Ahn et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 8
the auxiliary display areas [DA2] being round;
the guide film [50] comprising:
a central area;
a first side area extended to a first edge of the central area;
a second side area extended to a second edge intersecting the first edge of the central area; and
a corner area connecting the first side area to the second side area and exposing at least a part of the panel corner area [DA3].
PNG
media_image3.png
619
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
619
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ahn et al. into the method of Choi et al. to include the auxiliary display areas being round; the guide film comprising: a central area; a first side area extended to a first edge of the central area; a second side area extended to a second edge intersecting the first edge of the central area; and a corner area connecting the first side area to the second side area and exposing at least a part of the panel corner area. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable configuration of the auxiliary display areas and the guide film to provide a display device including a curved display area to increase a screen-to-body ratio of the display device [paragraph [0002], [0004] of Ahn et al.].
Alternatively,
Regarding claim 1, Ahn et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 14 a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel [10] comprising a main display area [DA1], auxiliary display areas [DA2] disposed on edges of the main display area [DA1], the auxiliary display areas [DA2] being round, and a panel corner area [DA3] connecting adjacent auxiliary display areas [DA2];
a cover window [30] connected to a first surface of the display panel [10]; and
a guide film [50] connected to a second surface of the display panel [10], the guide film [50] comprising:
a central area;
a first side area extended to a first edge of the central area;
a second side area extended to a second edge intersecting the first edge of the central area; and
a corner area connecting the first side area to the second side area and exposing at least a part of the panel corner area [DA3].
PNG
media_image3.png
619
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
619
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ahn et al. fails to disclose
a protective film, wherein the guide film is between the protective film and the display panel.
Choi et al. discloses in Fig. 5-Fig. 8
a protective film [SP], wherein the guide film [PL1 or PL2] is between the protective film [SP] and the display panel [DP].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Choi et al. into the method of Ahn et al. to include a protective film, wherein the guide film is between the protective film and the display panel. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ahn et al. in the above manner for the purpose of supporting or protecting the display panel [paragraph [0055] of Choi et al.].
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. discloses in Fig. 5, paragraph [0046], [0055]
a film adhesive member [PL2] disposed between the guide film [PL1] and the second surface of the display panel [DP].
Ahn et al. further discloses in paragraph [0091]
a film adhesive member disposed between the guide film [50] and the second surface of the display panel [10][“In order to easily remove the adhesive sheet 50, an attachment side of the adhesive sheet 50 may include an adhesive of which viscosity is deteriorated when ultraviolet (“UV”) or heat is applied thereto”].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161) and Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761) as applied to claim 6 above and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub. 20090087655)
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. and Ahn et al. fails to disclose
wherein the guide film comprises an acrylic resin, and the film adhesive member comprises a silicone-based resin.
Yamada et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0060]-[0066]
wherein the guide film [3d] comprises an acrylic resin, and the film adhesive member [3a and 3c] comprises a silicone-based resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamada et al. into the method of Choi et al. and Ahn et al. to include wherein the guide film comprises an acrylic resin, and the film adhesive member comprises a silicone-based resin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi et al. and Ahn et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of a repeelable mounting sheet so that a bonding process free from bubbles is achieved without the necessity of using a special facility [paragraph [0010], [0064]-[0066] of Yamada et al.].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161) and Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761) as applied to claim 6 above and in view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. 20130220511)
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. and Ahn et al. fails to disclose
wherein the guide film and the film adhesive member comprise a same material-based resin.
Suzuki et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0027], [0030]
wherein the guide film [110] and the film adhesive member [120] comprise a same material-based resin [acrylic resin, silicone resin].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamada et al. into the method of Choi et al. and Ahn et al. to include wherein the guide film and the film adhesive member comprise a same material-based resin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi et al. and Ahn et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the guide film and the film adhesive member. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161) and Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761) as applied to claim 6 above and in view of Won (US Pub. 20200401185) and Yamada et al. (US Pub. 20090087655)
Regarding claims 9-11, Choi et al. and Ahn et al. fails to disclose
wherein the display panel further comprises an impact absorbing layer disposed on the second surface of the display panel;
wherein the impact absorbing layer and the film adhesive member comprise a same material-based resin;
wherein the impact absorbing layer and the film adhesive member comprise different material-based resins.
Won et al. discloses in Fig. 22-24, paragraph [0089]
wherein the display panel further comprises an impact absorbing layer [PF1 and PF2] disposed on the second surface of the display panel [100].
Yamada et al. discloses in Fig. 10, Fig. 11, paragraph [0058], [0060], [0069]
wherein the display panel [6] further comprises an impact absorbing layer [4] disposed on the second surface of the display panel [6];
wherein the impact absorbing layer [4] and the film adhesive member [3d] comprise a same material-based resin [acryl-based][Fig. 11, paragraph [0064], [0069]];
wherein the impact absorbing layer [4] and the film adhesive member [3c or 3d] comprise different material-based resins [urethane based vs. silicone resin or acrylic resin][Fig. 10, Fig. 11, paragraph [0060], [0069]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamada et al. and Won into the method of Choi et al. and Ahn et al. to include wherein the display panel further comprises an impact absorbing layer disposed on the second surface of the display panel; wherein the impact absorbing layer and the film adhesive member comprise a same material-based resin; wherein the impact absorbing layer and the film adhesive member comprise different material-based resins. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Choi et al. and Ahn et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a protective film to protect the display panel from various impacts and deformations [paragraph [0069] of Yamada et al. and paragraph [0089] of Won].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7 that “the only time adhesive sheet 50 is attached to display panel 10 is during the lamination process,” Examiner respectfully disagrees because Fig. 10 and paragraph [0091] were not cited in the rejection. Further, Ahn discloses in paragraph [0101] that “After lamination is carried out, the adhesive sheet 50 may be removed”. Therefore, the adhesive sheet 50 is not necessarily removed. The newly cited reference Choi et al. suggests that the adhesive sheet 50 is not removed after lamination thus reduce process steps. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights