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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Fig. 21B of discloses wherein a first groove Gv1 is defined in the corner area, at least a portion of the first groove is defined along a circumference of the central area of the substrate, and the first groove has a closed rectangular shape in an unfolded shape of the substrate in a plan view, and
a second groove MGv is defined in the intermediate area along the circumference of the central area, and has a closed rectangular shape in the unfolded shape of the substrate in the plan view.
Choi does not disclose that the first groove Gv1 has a closed curve shape and does not disclose the second groove MGv closed curve shape.
Note that the difference between the claimed invention and the Choi et al device is the shape of the first groove and the second groove.
Although the Choi et al device does not teach the exact shape of the grooves as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the grooves is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. 20210384465.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1 and 21B of Park discloses a display panel comprising:
a substrate 100 including a central area (FDA/SDA), a corner area CDA including an extension area LA extending in a direction away from the central area, and an intermediate area MDA disposed between the central area and the corner area,
wherein a first groove Gv1 is defined in the corner area, at least a portion of the first groove is defined along a circumference of the central area of the substrate, and the first groove has a closed rectangular shape in an unfolded shape of the substrate in a plan view, and
a second groove MGv is defined in the intermediate area along the circumference of the central area, and has a closed rectangular shape in the unfolded shape of the substrate in the plan view.
Choi does not disclose that the first groove Gv1 has a closed curve shape and does not disclose the second groove MGv closed curve shape.
Note that the difference between the claimed invention and the Choi et al device is the shape of the first groove and the second groove.
Although the Choi et al device does not teach the exact shape of the grooves as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the grooves is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 21 (see rejection 1 above), figs. 1, 2 and 21B of Park discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel comprising: a substrate including a central area, a corner area including an extension area extending in a direction away from the central area, and an intermediate area disposed between the central area and the corner area; and
a cover window CW disposed on the display panel,
wherein a first groove is defined in the corner area,
at least a portion of the first groove is defined along a circumference of the central area, and the first groove has a closed rectangular shape in an unfolded shape of the substrate in a plan view
a second groove is defined in the intermediate area along the circumference of the central area, and has a closed curve shape, and has a closed rectangular shape in the unfolded shape of the substrate in the plan view, and
the display panel is bendable in the corner area (see fig. 2).
Choi does not disclose that the first groove Gv1 has a closed curve shape and does not disclose the second groove MGv closed curve shape.
Note that the difference between the claimed invention and the Choi et al device is the shape of the first groove and the second groove.
Although the Choi et al device does not teach the exact shape of the grooves as that claimed by Applicant, the shape differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular shape of the grooves is anything more than one of numerous shapes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein the first groove is defined along a circumference of the extension area.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 11A of Park discloses further comprising: a first organic insulating layer 116 disposed on the substrate; and a second organic insulating layer 117 disposed on the first organic insulating layer.
Regarding claim 4, fig. 11A of Park discloses wherein the first groove is defined in the first organic insulating layer.
Regarding claim 5, fig. 10C/11A of Park discloses further comprising: a first connection line 212Pa disposed between the substrate and the first organic insulating layer; and a second connection line 212Pc disposed between the first organic insulating layer and the second organic insulating layer.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 10C of Park discloses wherein the first connection line and the second connection line are electrically connected to each other in the first groove.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 11A of Park discloses further comprising: a first inorganic pattern layer 310 disposed in the first groove and covering the second connection line; and a second inorganic pattern layer 330 disposed on the second organic insulating layer.
Regarding claim 8, fig. 11A of Park disclose wherein the second inorganic pattern layer 330 includes a first protruding tip (sees top middle of 330 above OLED2 is a type of a tip) protruding toward a center of the first groove.
Regarding claim 9, fig. 11A of Park discloses wherein the first inorganic pattern layer 310 includes a second protruding tip (see where 310 on top left DP1 is a tip protruding to the right which is) protruding in a direction opposite to a central direction of the first groove, the second inorganic pattern layer includes a third protruding tip protruding in the direction opposite to the central direction of the first groove, and the second protruding tip and the third protruding tip at least partially overlap each other in a thickness direction of the substrate.
Regarding claim 12, fig. 6A of Park discloses further comprising a pixel PX3 disposed in the intermediate area.
Regarding claim 13, fig. 21B of Park discloses wherein the second groove is defined between the pixel and the corner area.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 6A/11A of Park discloses further comprising a first dam portion (left portion of DP1) and a second dam portion (right portion of DP1) disposed in the corner area, wherein the first groove is defined between the first dam portion and the second dam portion.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 11A of Park discloses wherein at least a portion (top portion) of the first dam portion is disposed along a circumference of the central area of the substrate, and the first dam portion has a closed curve shape (see top portion is a curved shape and is closed by 330).
Regarding claim 17, fig. 11A of Park discloses wherein at least a portion (top portion) of the second dam portion is disposed along a circumference of the central area, and the second dam portion has a closed curve shape (see top portion is a curved shape and is closed by 330).
Regarding claim 18, fig. 11A of Park discloses further comprising an auxiliary dam portion (portion of 320 between first dam portion and a second dam portion) disposed in the corner area, wherein a height of the auxiliary dam portion is greater than a height of the first dam portion or the second dam portion (see fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 19, fig. 11A of Park discloses further comprising an encapsulation layer TFE and a protective layer (layer combination of PVX2,116, PVX1) disposed in the corner area, the intermediate area, and the central area, wherein the encapsulation layer includes a first inorganic encapsulation layer, an organic encapsulation layer, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer, and the protective layer includes a first inorganic protective layer PVX1, an organic protective layer 116, and a second inorganic protective layer PVX2.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 11A of Park discloses wherein the organic protective layer is separated from an upper surface of the second dam portion.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893