Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed March 11th, 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 Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 12-14, “Remarks”) that Tomioka and Cho fail to disclose the limitations presented in amended Claim 1. Tomioka discloses a protection layer including a side protection portion (REO, however, Tomioka does not disclose any structure corresponding to the claimed third protection portion, let alone an integrated second sub-portion and third protection portion.
However, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In this instance, applicant merely states that Tomioka fails to teach a third protection portion integrated with a second sub-portion. However, applicant has failed to address the rejection of previously presented Claim 12 where Tomioka is relied upon to teach the claimed third protection portion. Furthermore, as seen below, Claim 1 is rejected by the combination of Tomioka and Cho.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka et al. (2019/0051858 A1; hereinafter Tomioka) in view of Cho et al. (2018/0003860 A1; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding Claim 1, Tomioka (annotated figs. 2 and 5 and figs. 3-) 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], 53, REO, [0076], FL, see annotated fig. 5) comprising a side protection portion (REO) covering at least the side surface (right of PL),
the side protection portion (REO) comprises a first sub-portion located in the unbonding region and a second sub-portion (portion of REO 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, FL) further comprises a third protection portion (portion of REO 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 is formed as one continuous layer, see annotated fig. 5) with the third protection portion (third protection portion).
Tomioka doesn’t teach the side protection portion comprises a first sub-portion located in the unbonding region.
However, Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the side protection portion ([0215], 714) comprises a first sub-portion ([0216], 714c) located in the unbonding region ([0212], region of the display panel 700 below 714c, see fig. 17B). Cho also teaches the side protection portion prevents the expansion and contraction of the polarizing layer due to heat and moisture and may prevent the propagation of a crack ([0109]).
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 side protection portion in the unbonding region of Cho to help prevent the propagation of cracks in the polarizing layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding Claim 2, Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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, the combination of Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) and Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a side of the first sub-portion (Cho, right side of 714c, see fig. 17B) toward the bonding region (Tomioka, BA, AR2) is connected (the first sub portion 714c of Cho would be connected through 53 of Tomioka into contact with REO) to a side of the second sub-portion (Tomioka, left side of second sub-portion, see annotated fig. 5) close to the polarizer (Tomioka, PL).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) and Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 2, wherein the protection layer (Tomioka, 53, REO, FL) further comprises a first protection portion (Tomioka, 53) disposed on a side of the polarizer (Tomioka, top of PL) away from the display device layer (Tomioka, display device layer), and the first protection portion (Tomioka, 53) is connected to the first sub-portion (Cho, 714c), wherein the first sub-portion (Cho, 714c) and the first protection portion (Cho, [0216], 714b) are formed by deforming and bending the same material layer (Cho, [0057], adhesive may be formed as a single layer).
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 (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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 (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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, the combination of Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) and Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 4, wherein the protection layer (Tomioka, 53, REO, FL) further comprises a second protection portion (Tomioka, FL) disposed on a side of the polarizer (Tomioka, bottom side of PL) toward the display device layer (Tomioka, display device layer), and the second protection portion (Tomioka, FL) is connected to the first sub-portion (Cho, 714c), wherein the second protection portion (Cho, [0216], 714a) protrudes over the first circumferential side surface (Cho, left surface of 712), and a distance between the first circumferential side surface (Cho, left surface of 712) and a side surface of the second protection portion (Cho, left surface of 714a) away from the display region is 0.1 mm ~0.2 mm (Cho, [0074], width b of adhesive overhang ranges from 1 μm – 1.5mm, see fig. 2b).
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 (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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 (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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, 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).
Regarding Claim 13, Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) 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 14, the combination of Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) and Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein a surface of the polarizer (Tomioka, PL) is in direct contact with the first protection portion (Tomioka, 53), the first sub-portion (Cho, 714c), the second sub-portion (Tomioka, second sub-portion), and the second protection portion (Tomioka, FL).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) and Cho (fig. 17B) teaches the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the first sub-portion (Cho, 714c) of the side protection portion is connected to a portion of at least one of the first protection portion (Tomioka, 53) and the second protection portion protruding over the polarizer (Tomioka, PL).
Regarding Claim 16, Tomioka (annotated fig. 2 and figs. 3-5) teaches a display apparatus ([0032], DSP) comprising the display panel (PNL, REO, 53) according to claim 1 (see above).
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 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 /NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights