Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on July 31st, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 31st, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31st, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 9-12, “Remarks”) that Tomioka and Cho fail to teach the limitations presented in amended Claim 1.
However, as seen below, Claim 1 is now rejected by the combination of Tomioka and Kamijo.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this instance, Claim 1 recites “the second sub-portion covers a side surface of the second protection portion located in the unbonding region” in lines 24-25. However, applicant’s filed specification states that the second sub-portion is located in the bonding region ([0035], 320 is located in NA2, see figs. 3-4) and does not describe embodiments suggesting otherwise. Therefore, applicant does not have support for the above limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second sub-portion covers a side surface of the second protection portion located in the unbonding region" in lines 24-25. The claim already defines the second sub-portion as being located in the bonding region in line 11. It is unclear how the second sub-portion may cover a side surface in the unbonding region. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “the second sub-portion covers a side surface of the second protection portion located in the bonding region”. Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected for being dependent on Claim 1.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 1-3, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (2019/0051858 A1; hereinafter Tomioka) in view of Kamijo et al. (2019/0148668 A1; hereinafter Kamijo).
Regarding Claim 1, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches:
a display panel ([0074], PNL, REO, 53; see annotated fig. 5) comprising a display region ([0068], DA, see fig. 4) and a non-display region ([0069], NDA, BA, AR2; see fig. 4 and annotated fig. 5), wherein the non-display region (NDA, BA, AR2) comprises a bonding region (BA, AR2) and an unbonding region (NDA), and the display panel comprises:
a display substrate ([0036], PNL, see annotated fig. 2) comprising a substrate ([0036], 10, see annotated fig. 2) and a display device layer ([0042]-[0052], layers and features disposed above substrate 10, collectively referred to as display device layer; see annotated fig. 2) disposed on the substrate (10), wherein the display device layer (display device layer) is at least partially located in the display region (DA);
a polarizer ([0074], PL, see annotated fig. 5) disposed on a side (PL is disposed on top of FL, see annotated fig. 5) of the display device layer (display device layer) away from the substrate (10), wherein the polarizer (PL) comprises a first surface (top surface of PL, see annotated fig. 5) away from the substrate (10), a second surface (bottom surface of PL, see annotated fig. 5) close to the substrate (10), and a side surface (right and left surfaces of PL, see annotated fig. 5) connecting the first surface (top of PL) and the second surface (bottom of PL); and
a protection layer ([0074]-[0076], 53, REO, PT, FL, see annotated fig. 5) comprising a side protection portion (REO, PT) covering at least the side surface (right of PL),
the side protection portion (REO, PT) comprises a first sub-portion ([0116], REO4, see figs. 15 and 17) located in the unbonding region (NDA) and a second sub-portion (portion of REO and PT positioned in AR1, referred to as second sub-portion, see annotated fig. 5) located in the bonding region (BA, AR2), wherein the bonding region (BA, AR2) is provided with a metal wiring layer ([0060], 6, see fig. 3) located on the substrate (10), and the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) covers at least a part of a surface (second sub-portion covers a portion of 6, see annotated fig. 5) of the metal wiring layer (6) away from the substrate (10), wherein
the protection layer (53, REO, PT, FL) further comprises a third protection portion (portion of REO and PT positioned in BA, AR2, referred to as third protection portion, see annotated fig. 5), the third protection portion (third protection portion) is located on a side of the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) away from the polarizer (PL) and covers at least a part of the metal wiring layer (third protection portion covers a portion of 6, see annotated fig. 5), and wherein the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) is integrated (REO and PT is formed as one continuous layer, see annotated fig. 5) with the third protection portion (third protection portion), wherein
the protection layer (53, REO, PT, FL) further comprises a first protection portion (53) disposed on a side of the polarizer (top of PL) away from the display device layer (display device layer), and wherein
a top surface of the second sub- portion (top surface of second sub-portion) is above a top surface of the polarizer (top surface of PL) and is below a top surface of the first protection portion, wherein
the protection layer (53, REO, PT, FL) further comprises a second protection portion (FL) disposed on a side of the polarizer (bottom side of PL) toward the display device layer (display device layer), and the second protection portion (FL) is connected (see fig. 17) to the first sub-portion (REO4) and wherein
the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) covers a side surface of the second protection portion (FL) located in the unbonding region (BA, AR2) (See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, this limitation is interpreted as “bonding region”).
Tomioka doesn’t teach a top surface of the second sub-portion is above a top surface of the polarizer and is below a top surface of the first protection portion.
However, Kamijo (fig. 23) teaches a top surface of the second sub-portion ([0119], top surface of PT) is above a top surface of the polarizer ([0119], top surface of PL1) and is below a top surface of the first protection portion ([0120], top surface of 50). Kamijo also teaches that this structure suppresses the creation of air bubbles ([0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Tomioka to include second sub-portion of Kamijo to suppress the creation of air bubbles.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
616
961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding Claim 2, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the side surface (right and left surfaces of PL) includes a first circumferential side surface (left surface of PL) and a second circumferential side surface (right surface of PL) connected to each other, the second circumferential side surface (right surface of PL) is located on a side of the polarizer toward the bonding region (BA, AR2), and the first circumferential side surface (left surface of PL) is a surface of the polarizer (PL) toward the unbonding region (NDA).
Regarding Claim 3, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a side of the first sub-portion (REO4) toward the bonding region (BA, AR2) is connected (all of REO is connected, see fig. 15) to a side of the second sub-portion (side of second sub-portion, see annotated fig. 5) close to the polarizer (PL).
Regarding Claim 13, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, further comprising a support film ([0038], SP1, SP2) having a first support portion (SP1) and a second support portion (SP2), wherein the first support portion (SP1) is located in the display region (DA) and provides support on a side of the substrate (10) away from the display device layer (display device layer), the second support portion (SP2) and the first support portion (SP1) are spaced apart (see fig. 5), the second support portion (SP2) is located in the bonding region (BA, AR2), and the second support portion (SP2) provides support on a side of the substrate (10) away from the metal wiring layer (6).
Regarding Claim 16, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches a display apparatus ([0032], DSP) comprising the display panel (PNL, REO, PT, 53) according to claim 1 (see above).
Claims 4-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka and Kamijo as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (2018/0003860 A1; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding Claim 4, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first protection portion (53) is connected to the first sub-portion (REO4), wherein the first sub-portion and the first protection portion are formed by deforming and bending the same material layer.
Tomioka doesn’t teach the first sub-portion and first protection portion are formed by deforming and bending the same material layer.
However, Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the first sub-portion ([0216], 714c) and first protection portion ([0216], 714b) are formed by deforming and bending the same material layer ([0057], adhesive may be formed as a single layer). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the first sub-portion and first protection portion of Cho for the first sub-portion and first protection portion of Tomioka and yielded the predictable results of forming a sealed polarizer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first sub-portion and first protection portion of Cho for the first sub-portion and first protection portion of Tomioka, since simple substitution of protection portions for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
A portion of Claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, anticipation of Claim 4 does not require “the first sub-portion and the first protection portion are formed by deforming and bending the same material layer”, but simply that the first sub-portion and the first protection portion are formed from the same material layer. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Regarding Claim 5, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 4, wherein a surface of the first protection portion (53) toward the bonding region (BA, AR2) is flush with a surface (see fig. 5) of the polarizer (right side of PL) toward the bonding region (BA, AR2).
Regarding Claim 6, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 4, wherein a side of the first protection portion (right side of 53) toward the bonding region (BA, AR2) is connected to a side of the second sub-portion (left side of second sub-portion) close to the polarizer (PL).
Regarding Claim 7, Tomioka doesn’t teach the second protection portion protrudes over the first circumferential side surface, and a distance between the first circumferential side surface and a side surface of the second protection portion away from the display region is 0.1 mm ~ 0.2 mm.
However, Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the second protection portion ([0216], 714a) protrudes over the first circumferential side surface ([0216], left surface of 712), and a distance between the first circumferential side surface (left surface of 712) and a side surface of the second protection portion (left surface of 714a) away from the display region is 0.1 mm ~0.2 mm ([0074], width b of adhesive overhang ranges from 1 μm – 1.5mm, see fig. 2b). Cho also teaches that such a distance makes it possible to prevent the penetration of moisture from the outside by completely sealing the polarizer ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Tomioka to include the distances of Cho to prevent the penetration of moisture.
Regarding Claim 8, Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the first sub-portion (714c) is integrated ([0057], adhesive may be formed in a single layer) with the first protection portion (714b), or the first sub-portion is integrated with the second protection portion, or a part of the first sub-portion is integrated with the first protection portion, and another part of the first sub-portion is integrated with the second protection portion.
Regarding Claim 9, Tomioka doesn’t teach the display panel according to claim 7, wherein a surface of the second protection portion toward the bonding region is flush with a surface of the polarizer toward the bonding region.
However, Cho (fig. 2B) teaches a surface of the second protection portion ([0055], right side of 114a) toward the bonding region is flush (see fig. 2B) with a surface of the polarizer (112) toward the bonding region while still maintaining the function of a polarizer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the second protection portion of Cho for the second protection portion of Tomioka and yielded the predictable results of forming a sealed polarizer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second protection portion of Cho for the second protection portion of Tomioka, since simple substitution of protection portions for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 9, wherein the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) further covers a side surface of the second protection portion (right side of FL), and a thickness of the second sub-portion (second sub-portion) is greater than (see fig. 5) or equal to a sum of a thickness of the second protection portion (FL) and a thickness of the polarizer (PL).
Regarding Claim 11, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the second protection portion is a glue layer, and the second protection portion is bonded to the side protection portion; and/or the side protection portion (REO) is a glue layer ([0078], REO adheres features together), and the side protection portion (REO) is bonded (REO is in contact with FL, see fig. 5) to the second protection portion (FL).
Regarding Claim 12, Tomioka doesn’t teach a minimum distance between an outer surface of the first sub-portion and the side surface is 0.1 mm ~ 0.2 mm.
However, Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a minimum distance between an outer surface of the first sub-portion (left side of 714b) and the side surface (left side of 712) is 0.1 mm~ 0.2 mm ([0074], width b of adhesive overhang ranges from 1 μm – 1.5mm, see fig. 2b). Cho also teaches that such a distance makes it possible to prevent the penetration of moisture from the outside by completely sealing the polarizer ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display panel of Tomioka to include the distances of Cho to prevent the penetration of moisture.
Regarding Claim 14, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein a surface of the polarizer (PL) is in direct contact with the first protection portion (53), the first sub-portion (REO4), the second sub-portion (second sub-portion), and the second protection portion (FL).
Regarding Claim 15, Tomioka (figs. 2-5, 15, and 17) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the first sub-portion (REO4) of the side protection portion (REO, PT) is connected to a portion of at least one of the first protection portion (53) and the second protection portion protruding over the polarizer (PL).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaneki et al. (2017/0371204 A1) teaches a polarizer surrounded by a protection member. See fig. 5 and paragraphs [0045]-[0047].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
