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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, 10-11, and 19-20 are objected to.
Claims 12-17 are non-elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 September 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page of the remarks, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Feng et al. (US 2018/0080628).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 2018/0080628) (hereafter Feng).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a display device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) comprising: a glass substrate including a plurality of pixels (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0029], color filter substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate (see at least Fig. 2, upper polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a step difference between the glass substrate and the polarizing film (see at least Fig. 2, conductive silver paste); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate, wherein the rear coating layer is disposed to protrude beyond an end of the glass substrate and cover an entire rear surface of the glass substrate and an entire rear surface of the side coating layer (see at least Fig. 2, array substrate).
Fig. 2 of Feng is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Feng discloses A display device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) comprising: a glass substrate having a first length (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0029], color filter substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate having a second length (see at least Fig. 2, upper polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a gap at each end of the glass substrate resulting from a difference between the first length of the glass substrate and the second length of the polarizing film (see at least Fig. 2, conductive silver paste); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate, wherein the rear coating layer is disposed to protrude beyond an end of the glass substrate and cover an entire rear surface of the glass substrate and an entire rear surface of the side coating layer (see at least Fig. 2, array substrate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0080628) (hereafter Feng) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2023/0090105) of record (hereafter Shin).
Regarding claim 3, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not specifically disclose that an end of the polarizing film is more protruded that that of the glass substrate.
However, Shin teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a glass substrate including a plurality of pixels (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0081], where substrate 40 includes a glass substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0295], where front cover 70 can be a circular polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a step difference between the glass substrate and the polarizing film (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0187], where side cover 90 is a side coating layer over a side of the glass substrate 40); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0163], where rear adhesive tape 61 can be a rear coating layer below the glass substrate 40), wherein an end of the polarizing film is more protruded that that of the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Feng to include the teachings of Shin so that an end of the polarizing film is more protruded that that of the glass substrate for the purpose of optimizing layer widths to maximize a display region of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not specifically disclose that the polarizing film has a first length that is longer than a second length of the glass substrate, resulting in the step difference.
However, Shin teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a glass substrate including a plurality of pixels (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0081], where substrate 40 includes a glass substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0295], where front cover 70 can be a circular polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a step difference between the glass substrate and the polarizing film (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0187], where side cover 90 is a side coating layer over a side of the glass substrate 40); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0163], where rear adhesive tape 61 can be a rear coating layer below the glass substrate 40), wherein the polarizing film has a first length that is longer than a second length of the glass substrate, resulting in the step difference (see at least Figs. 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Feng to include the teachings of Shin so that the polarizing film has a first length that is longer than a second length of the glass substrate, resulting in the step difference for the purpose of optimizing layer widths to maximize a display region of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not specifically disclose that at least one side of the glass substrate has an inclined surface, and the side coating layer is provided to at least partially cover the inclined surface of the glass substrate.
However, Shin teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a glass substrate including a plurality of pixels (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0081], where substrate 40 includes a glass substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0295], where front cover 70 can be a circular polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a step difference between the glass substrate and the polarizing film (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0187], where side cover 90 is a side coating layer over a side of the glass substrate 40); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0163], where rear adhesive tape 61 can be a rear coating layer below the glass substrate 40), wherein at least one side of the glass substrate has an inclined surface, and the side coating layer is provided to at least partially cover the inclined surface of the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7, where the glass substrate has beveled edges 49, which are inclined surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Feng to include the teachings of Shin so that at least one side of the glass substrate has an inclined surface, and the side coating layer is provided to at least partially cover the inclined surface of the glass substrate for the purpose of using a known shape for the end of the glass substrate in order to obtain predictable results such as ease of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 9, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not specifically disclose a heat dissipation film below the rear coating layer.
However, Shin teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a glass substrate including a plurality of pixels (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0081], where substrate 40 includes a glass substrate); a polarizing film provided over the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0295], where front cover 70 can be a circular polarizer); a side coating layer provided over a side of the glass substrate to fill a step difference between the glass substrate and the polarizing film (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0187], where side cover 90 is a side coating layer over a side of the glass substrate 40); and a rear coating layer provided below the glass substrate (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0163], where rear adhesive tape 61 can be a rear coating layer below the glass substrate 40), wherein the device further comprises a heat dissipation film below the rear coating layer (see at least Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraphs [0148]-[0150], where metal plate 60 is a heat dissipation film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Feng to include the teachings of Shin so that the device further comprises a heat dissipation film below the rear coating layer for the purpose of improving durability of the device by being able to dissipate heat.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2018/0080628) (hereafter Feng) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0376270) of record (hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 5, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not specifically disclose a cover substrate provided over the polarizing film; and an adhesive layer provided between the polarizing film and the cover substrate, wherein the adhesive layer has the same end as that of the polarizing film.
However, Li discloses a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising a cover substrate provided over a polarizing film; and an adhesive layer provided between the polarizing film and the cover substrate, wherein the adhesive layer has the same end as that of the polarizing film (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0052], where circular polarizer 104 is attached to a protection film 106 by an optical clear adhesive layer 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the displace device of Feng to include the teachings of Li so that the device further comprises a cover substrate provided over the polarizing film; and an adhesive layer provided between the polarizing film and the cover substrate, wherein the adhesive layer has the same end as that of the polarizing film for the purpose of providing a protection film that improves the durability of the display device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 10-11, and 19-20 are objected to.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein ends of the polarizing film and the side coating layer are aligned, as generally set forth in claim 2, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device further comprising an etch stop layer provided between the side coating layer and the polarizing film, as generally set forth in claim 8, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein the side coating layer is made of an organic material that absorbs light, as generally set forth in claim 10, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein the side coating layer and the rear coating layer are made of the same material, as generally set forth in claim 11, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein the side coating layer aligns the ends of the glass substrate and the polarizing film, as generally set forth in claim 19, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 18 from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a display device wherein the side coating layer is formed of either an organic material that absorbs light or an organic material having an optical density (OD) of at least 1.0, as generally set forth in claim 20, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 18 from which claim 20 depends.
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872