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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-28 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 25 belongs to a different embodiment (figure 31), wherein a thickness of the second portion increases with increasing distance from a center of the display panel.
Claim 28 belongs to embodiments of figures 15-19 (see par[0123]), wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of layers and wherein each layer has a respective uniform Young’s modulus.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
The Applicant’s argument regarding the teaching of Qiao with respect to “wherein the patterned film has a transparency of less than 80%” in claim 3 is not persuasive. The Examiner would like to point out that the teaching of Qiao was used to show that the level of ambient light reflection directly relates and depends on the transparency level of intermediate layer(s), which can be controlled, as desired. Also, the terms transparency and opacity refer to the level of light passing through.
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, 2, 4-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. U.S. Pub. 2015/0146069 (hereinafter D1) in view of An et al. U.S. Pub. 2013/0034685 (hereinafter D2).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an electronic device (shown in figures 14A1 and 14A2) comprising:
a display panel (111; figure 14A1) that displays an image (206; figure 14A1), wherein the display panel (111) has a rounded corner (see above annotated figure 14A1) that is bent about two, non-parallel axes (see above annotated figure 14A1);
However, D1 does not specifically teach a display cover layer that covers the display panel; and
a patterned film that is attached to the display panel, wherein the patterned film is interposed between the display panel and the display cover layer and wherein the patterned film has at least a portion with a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel.
D2, teaches an electronic device (101; figure 1), including a display panel (100; figure 1); a display cover layer (300; figure 1) that covers (see figure 1) the display panel; and a patterned film (500; figure 1) that is attached to the display panel (100), wherein the patterned film (500) is interposed between (see figure 1) the display panel (100) and the display cover layer (530) and wherein the patterned film (500) has at least a portion with a different coefficient (implicitly taught, since film 500 is a thermal resin layer, which is different material from display panel 100) of thermal expansion than the display panel.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the electronic device of D1 with a display cover layer that covers the display panel; and a patterned film that is attached to the display panel, wherein the patterned film to be interposed between the display panel and the display cover layer and wherein the patterned film has at least a portion with a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel, as suggested by D2, to provide impact absorbing capability.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of D1/D2 2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the portion is a corner portion (see above figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) that overlaps the rounded corner of the display panel and wherein the corner portion has first and second orthogonal edges (vertical and horizontal edges of housing 101 of D1 and a curved edge (curved edge of corner of D1; see figure 14A1 of D1) that connects the first and second orthogonal edges.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the patterned film (500 of D2, resulted from modification) comprises a sacrificial layer (see figure 1 of D2; 520 is interpreted as a “sacrificial layer”).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the rounded corner (see above figure 14A1 of D1) of the display panel is one of the four rounded corners (see above figure 14A1 of D1), wherein the display panel includes four edges (two long edges and two short edges; see above figure 14A1 of D1) that are each interposed between two of the four rounded corners, wherein the patterned film has a footprint (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) with four corner portions (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) and four edge portions (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) that are each interposed between (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) two of the four corner portions, wherein each corner portion overlaps (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) a respective rounded corner of the four rounded corners, wherein each edge portion overlaps (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2) a respective edge of the four edges, and wherein the portion is one of the four edge portions (see figure 14A1 of D1 and figure 1 of D2).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein at least one edge portion of the patterned film includes respective first and second curved surfaces (implicitly taught in figure 14A1 of D1) that meet at a vertex (tip of the corner; implicitly taught in figure 14A1 of D1).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein at least one edge portion of the patterned film would include a curved surface (see corner of above figure 14A1 of D1) that has a concave curvature (see above figure 14A1 of D1; note: concave curvature or convex curvature merely depends on which direction is being viewed).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1.
Note: Having a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) means a material changes size very little when heated or cooled. It represents high dimensional stability, ensuring that the material retains its precise shape, volume, and integrity across varying temperatures.
Even though, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein the portion has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel, however, it is clear that the portion of the pattern film of D1/D2 serves to support said display panel. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide or choose a material of said pattern film such that the portion would have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel to retain its precise shape, volume, and integrity across varying temperatures to optimally support said display panel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (in this case, choose a material such that it would have lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of D1/D2 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 1, which further comprises an adhesive layer (520; figure 1 of D2; 520 is a thermosetting resin layer = adhesive layer) that is interposed between the display cover layer and the patterned film.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. U.S. Pub. 2015/0146069 (hereinafter D1) in view of An et al. U.S. Pub. 2013/0034685 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Jeong et al. U.S. Patent 11,145,838 (hereinafter D3).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above, the modification of D1/D2 teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach an additional patterned film, wherein the display panel is interposed between the additional patterned film and the patterned film.
D3 teaches a similar structure, which suggests an additional patterned film (210; figure 1) positioned on the lower (or inner side) of a display panel (120; figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further the electronic device of D1/D2 with an additional pattern film, as suggested by D3, such that the display panel would be interposed between an additional patterned film and the patterned film, to further enhance the structural integrity of said electronic device.
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D3 teaches the electronic device defined in claim 11.
Even though, D1/D2/D3 does not specifically teach wherein the portion has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel and therein the additional patterned film has an additional portion with a higher coefficient of thermal expansion and the display panel, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide or choose a material of said pattern film and the additional patterned film such that the portion would have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel to retain its precise shape, volume, and integrity across varying temperatures to optimally support said display panel, and the additional patterned film would have an additional portion with a higher coefficient of thermal expansion and the display panel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (in this case, choose a material such that it would have lower/higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. U.S. Pub. 2015/0146069 (hereinafter D1) in view of An et al. U.S. Pub. 2013/0034685 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Qiao et al. U.S. Patent 11,388,329 (hereinafter D6).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach wherein the patterned film has a transparency of less than 80%.
D6, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a display panel, which suggests a layer which can be adjusted to have various transparency levels, wherein one of the transparency levels is less than 80%, to help control ambient light reflections. Clearly, the level of ambient light reflection directly relates and depends on the transparency level of intermediate layer(s).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the patterned film of D1/D2 with a transparency of less than 80%, as suggested by D6, to achieve certain desired percentage of light reflection or light passing through said pattern film.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1/D2 in view of Tsurumi et al. U.S. Pub. 2011/0287270 (hereinafter D4).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, D1/D2 teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that said the portion has a coefficient of thermal expansion gradient.
Note: A coefficient of thermal expansion gradient describes how the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) varies with position or temperature within a material. In simpler terms, it indicates how much the material's tendency to expand or contract with temperature changes, changes across the material's structure.
D4 suggests that materials having a coefficient of thermal expansion gradient has been known and applied to various types of devices, for providing gradual change in material, thus reducing residual stress (see par[0126]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further equip said portion of D1/D2 with a coefficient of thermal expansion gradient, as suggested by D4, to help reducing residual stress in said portion.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. U.S. Pub. 2015/0146069 (hereinafter D1) in view of An et al. U.S. Pub. 2013/0034685 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent 12,185,485 (hereinafter D5).
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches an electronic device (shown in figures 14A1 and 14A2) comprising:
a display panel (111; figure 14A1) that displays an image (206; figure 14A1), wherein the display panel (111) has a rounded corner (see above annotated figure 14A1) that bends about two, non-parallel axes (see above annotated figure 14A1);
However, D1 does not specifically teach a display cover layer that covers the display panel; and
a patterned film that is attached to the display panel, wherein the patterned film is interposed between the display panel and the display cover layer and wherein the patterned film has at least a portion with a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel.
D2, teaches an electronic device (101; figure 1), including a display panel (100; figure 1); a display cover layer (300; figure 1) that covers (see figure 1) the display panel; and a patterned film (500; figure 1) that is attached to the display panel (100), wherein the patterned film (500) is interposed between (see figure 1) the display panel (100) and the display cover layer (530) and wherein the patterned film (500) has at least a portion with a different coefficient (implicitly taught, since film 500 is a thermal resin layer, which is different material from display panel 100) of thermal expansion than the display panel.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the electronic device of D1 with a display cover layer that covers the display panel; and a patterned film that is attached to the display panel, wherein the patterned film to be interposed between the display panel and the display cover layer and wherein the patterned film has at least a portion with a different coefficient of thermal expansion than the display panel, as suggested by D2, to provide impact absorbing capability.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that the film has a first portion with a first Young’s modulus and a second portion with a second Young’s modulus that is different than the first Young’s modulus.
D5, teaches a similar structure, in which a layer (72; figure 10) can have different Young’s modulus values for handling different tensile stress levels (see par[0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the patterned film of D1/D2 to have a first portion with a first Young’s modulus and a second portion with a second Young’s modulus that is different than the first Young’s modulus, as suggested by D5, for handling different tensile stress levels.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of D1/D2/D5 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the first and second portions are coplanar (see figure 14A1 of D1).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of D1/D2/D5 would result in the electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the film has a footprint (implicitly resulted from modification of D2) with a central portion (main portion of the film on portion 111 resulted from modification; figure 14A1 of D1) and a gradient portion (curving portion along the edge of 101 resulted from modification; figure 14A1 of D1) formed along an edge (curved edge of 101; figure 14A1 of D1) of the central portion, wherein the central portion has a uniform (implicitly taught) Young’s modulus, and wherein the gradient portion has a gradient (implicitly taught from modification) Young’s modulus.
Note: A gradient represents the rate of change of a value.
A gradient Young's modulus refers to a material where the Young's modulus (a measure of stiffness) changes gradually across its structure, rather than being uniform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach, disclose or suggest the electronic device, in combination with all the positively claimed elements defined in claim 13, wherein the first portion is a patch that overlaps the rounded corner of the display panel and wherein the first portion is laterally surrounded by the second portion.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/HUNG Q. DANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights