The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the embodiment of figure 2 in the reply filed on 08/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 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. The claimed limitation of “and each of the display comprising”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the structural relationship between said display and the claimed tiled display. The claimed limitation of “ the first external circuit area are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate ”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which element s are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate The claimed limitation of “the second external circuit area are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which element s are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate The claimed limitation of “ the display panel ”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the structural relationship between said display panel and the claimed tiled display. The claimed limitation of “and each of the display s ”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the structural relationship between said each of the displays and the claimed tiled display. The claimed limitation of “one of the cutting edges” and “at least one cutting edge”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the structural relationship between said “one of the cutting edges” and “at least one cutting edge” and the claimed tiled display. The claimed limitation of “the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area are respectively back-folded through one of the cutting edges”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to how the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area are respectively back-folded through one of the cutting edges since the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area are not located in one of the cutting edges . 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 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 of this title, 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 1-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ( 11,006,534 ) in view of Chiang et al. (201 0/0026951 ) and Yang et al. (2017/0171969). Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach in figure 1A and related text a tiled display comprising a plurality of displays 110 tiled with each other, and each of the display comprising: a transparent rigid mother substrate 112 (see figure 2) with a top surface, a bottom surface opposite to the top surface, and a plurality of cutting edges sandwiched between the top surface and the bottom surface; and a flexible display panel 111 (see figure 2) formed on the transparent rigid mother substrate, and the flexible display panel comprising a flexible substrate, a pixel area (inherently therein since it is a display panel) , a first external circuit area and a second external circuit area (see e.g. figures 3B and 5C) , wherein the pixel area is located on the top surface of the transparent rigid mother substrate, and the first external circuit area are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate (since it is located in the display panel) and electrically connected with a plurality of scanning lines of the display panel (in order to operate the device. A display device would not operate without electrical connections to scanning and data lines) , and the second external circuit area are located outside of the transparent rigid mother substrate and electrically connected with a plurality of data lines of the display panel, and the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area are respectively fasten on the back surface of the transparent rigid mother substrate; wherein each of the displays is tiled with the other displays adjacent thereto by at least one cutting edge thereof to form the tiled display. Kim et al. do not explicitly state that the flexible display panel comprising a flexible substrate, a pixel area , a first external circuit area and a second external circuit area , and wherein the first and second external circuit area are electrically connected with a plurality of scanning lines and data lines of the display panel . Kim et al. further do not teach that the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area are respectively back-folded through one of the cutting edges . Chiang et al. teach in figure 3 A and related text flexible display panel comprising a flexible substrate, a pixel area, a first external circuit area and a second external circuit area, and wherein the first and second external circuit area are electrically connected with a plurality of scanning lines and data lines of the display panel. Yang et al. teach in figure 1 and related text first and second external circuit area are electrically connected with a plurality of scanning lines and data lines of the display panel. Yang et al. , Chiang et al. and Kim et al. are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to form the flexible display panel comprising a flexible substrate, a pixel area, a first external circuit area and a second external circuit area, and wherein the first and second external circuit area are electrically connected with a plurality of scanning lines and data lines of the display panel , as taught by Chiang et al. , in Kim et al. ’s device, in order to be able to operate the device in its intended use. It would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to form the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area respectively back-folded through one of the cutting edges , as taught by Yang et al. , in Kim et al.’s device, in order to be able to provide better protection to sensitive circuits in the first external circuit area and the second external circuit area . Regarding claim 2 , it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to form the transparent rigid mother substrate being a glass substrate, a silicon substrate, a quartz substrate or a sapphire substrate , in prior art in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using well-known conventional substrate material. Regarding claim 3 , it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to form the flexible substrate is formed by a material selected from one of the group consisting of Polyester resin, Polyimide (PID, Modified Polyimide (MPI), Covalent Organic Framework (COP), Liquid Photo-Imageable (LPI). Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP), Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and flexible epoxy bonded fiber-glass board, or combinations thereof, in prior art in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using well-known conventional substrate material. Regarding claim s 4 and 5, the claimed limitations of wherein the cutting edges are passivated by mechanically polishing, irradiating with a long wavelength laser, or forming a cured UV resin thereon , these are process limitations which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced by using these specific processing steps. Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao , 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann , 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Regarding claim 6 , it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , to form each of the displays tiled with the other displays adjacent thereto by an adhesive formed on at least one cutting edge therebetween to form the tiled display , in prior art in order to improve the structural integrity of the device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272- 1 670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). O.N. / ORI NADAV / date 8/30/2025 PRIMARY EXAMINER TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800