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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 06/10/2026, in which claims 2-5, 12-23 were withdrawn, claims 24-25 were cancelled, claim 26 was added, has been entered.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].
Claim 26 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 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20200136067).
Regarding claim 26, Choi et al. disclose in Fig. 5-Fig. 8,
wherein the guide film [PL1 or PL2] comprises a first surface facing the protective film [SP], a second surface facing the display panel [DP], a sidewall connecting the first and second surfaces.
Choi et al. and Ahn et al. fails to disclose
the sidewall inclined relative to the first surface.
Kim et al. discloses in Fig. 7, paragraph [0093]-[0094]
the sidewall [sidewall of AD2] inclined relative to the first surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
374
961
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim et al. further discloses in Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 10 that alternatively the sidewall vertical relative to the first surface.
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 Kim et al. into the method of Choi et al. and Ahn et al. to include the sidewall inclined relative to the first surface. 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 alternative profile of the sidewall of the guide film.
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 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It is also noted that this is device claim. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the method of Choi and Ahn are not persuasive and irrelevant with the rejection of the device claims.
It is further noted that “guide film” is a label of an adhesive layer attached to a back surface of the display panel and capable of performing an intended use as a guide film during the lamination process. Per MPEP 2131: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” MPEP 2114 II. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, any of adhesive layer [PL1 and/or PL2] disclosed by Choi et al. or [50] disclosed by Ahn is capable of performing the intended use as a guide film, thus they are equivalent to the claimed “guide film”.
It is also noted that claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161) in view of Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761) or alternatively claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Ahn et al. (US Pub. 20200160761) in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. 20200337161). In the first rejection, Ahn is cited to modify the shape of the adhesive film/ guide film attached to a back surface of the display panel disclosed by Choi et al. In the second rejection, Choi is used to add a protection layer to the device of Ahn.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 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