210091321DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Election dated 11/10/2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 and 20 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al [US 10,367,173]
► With respect to claim 20, , Wu et al (fig 6, cols 1-12) discloses the claimed cover window (CL3, col 9 lines 60-67 & col 10 lines 1-21) for display panel (DP3) disposed on the display panel, the cover window comprising:
a first member (MP(CLa), PP (CLa)) defining a plurality of opening patterns therein; and a second member (CLb) disposed in the plurality of opening patterns, wherein a modulus of the first member is greater than a modulus of the second member.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [US 10,367,173] in view of Jeon [US 2021/0091321]
► With respect to claim 1, Wu et al (fig 6, cols 1-12) discloses display apparatus comprising:
a display panel (DP3, col 10 line 19);
a cover window (CL3, col 9 lines 60-67 & col 10 lines 1-21) disposed on the display panel, wherein the cover window comprises: a first member (MP(CLa), PP (CLa)) defining a plurality of opening patterns therein; and a second member (CLb) disposed in the plurality of opening patterns, and a modulus of the first member is greater than a modulus of the second member.
Wu et al does not expressly mention in written the display panel comprising a display portion and a plurality of connection portions connected to the display portion and extending in different directions.
However, the display panel comprising the display portion and the plurality of connection portions connected to the display portion and extending in different directions is well known in the art. See Jeon (fig 1, text [0001]-[0136]) teaches the display panel (DP, text [0049]) comprising the display portion (DA) and the plurality of connection portions (EDV, EL, SDV, SL, DDV, DL) connected to the display portion and extending in different directions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art, in view of Jeon, to have the display panel comprising the display portions and connection portions as being claimed in the display apparatus of Wu et al to perform appropriate display function as being needed in the display apparatus.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [US 10,367,173] in view of Jeon [US 2021/0091321], as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Han et al [EP-30301506-A1]
► With respect to claims 2-4, Wu et al in view of Jeon substantially discloses the claimed display apparatus comprising the window cover comprising the plurality of opening pattern but does not expressly teach each of the plurality of opening patterns comprises a first opening extending in a first direction and a second opening formed in a first end of the first opening; wherein each of the plurality of opening patterns further comprises a third opening formed in a second end of the first opening opposite to the first end of the first opening; wherein the plurality of opening patterns are arranged parallel to the first direction, which is a longitudinal direction of the first opening.
However, Han et al (fig 10, text [0001]-[0081]) teaches each of the plurality of opening patterns (OP) comprises a first opening extending in a first direction (y) and a second opening formed in a first end of the first opening; wherein each of the plurality of opening patterns further comprises a third opening formed in a second end of the first opening opposite to the first end of the first opening; wherein the plurality of opening patterns are arranged parallel to the first direction, which is a longitudinal direction of the first opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the display apparatus of Wu et al in view of Jeon by having the opening patterns with the second and third openings and the opening patterns arranged as being claimed, per taught by Han et al, to provide an improved cover window with stability and reliability for display apparatus.
► With respect to claim 5, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches an interval between the plurality of opening patterns in the first direction is less than a length of the first opening in the first direction.
► With respect to claim 6, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches a length of the second opening in the first direction is less than a length of the first opening in the first direction.
► With respect to claim 7, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches a length of the third opening in the first direction is less than a length of the first opening in the first direction.
► With respect to claim 8, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches wherein, in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a width of the first opening is less than each of a width of the second opening and a width of the third opening.
► With respect to claim 9, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches wherein the plurality of opening patterns comprise a first opening pattern, a second opening pattern, and a third opening pattern, which are sequentially arranged and apart from one another in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a second opening of the first opening pattern and a second opening of the third opening pattern are on a virtual straight line in the second direction, and a first opening of the second opening pattern is between the second opening of the first opening pattern and the second opening of the third opening pattern.
► With respect to claim 10, the claimed circular shape of the second and third openings was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the planar surface of the entire upper surface of the layer of material would yield unexpected result. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).► With respect to claim 11, the same reason given above, Han et al (fig 10) teaches the second opening and the third opening have a same size.
Claims 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al [US 10,367,173] in view of Jeon [US 2021/0091321], as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al [2022/0093012]
► With respect to claims 12-14, the claimed parameters of modulus and refractive index difference of the first member and the second member would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
► With respect to claims 15 and 16, glass, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), transparent polyimide (PI), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) are known materials for members for the cover window for display apparatus. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301. See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANHHA S PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1696. The examiner can normally be reached 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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/THANHHA S PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812