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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-20 are currently pending.
Claims 3 and 5 are canceled.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 08/13/2026 have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 3 and 5 have been canceled.
The Section 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
However, new Section 103 rejections have been implemented upon further search and consideration.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 2014/0133046 A1) in view of Sunwoo et al. (US 2022/0263043 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Sung teaches a display device (3, an electronic device), comprising: a substrate (30); and light transmissible areas and light shielding areas (34 + 32, corresponds to the claimed light shielding layer) disposed on the substrate and provided with an edge, a main body area (such as item 32), and a peripheral area (such as item 34a, 34b, and/or 34c) disposed between the edge and the main body area (Sung: abstract; Fig. 10; par. 0031-0034).
A light penetration rate of the light shielding layer in the peripheral area (such as item 34a) is greater than the light penetration rate of the light shielding layer in the main body area (such as item 32) (Sung: Fig. 10; par. 0033). The light shielding layer shields a peripheral portion of the substrate (30) and exposes an display area (300, an active area) as light is shielded to various degrees within said light shielding area (34 + 32) as it surrounds said active area and is not present in said active area 300 and thus does not shield light/exposes said active area.
Sung further teaches the width of the fading pattern 34 may be larger than 1 mm with a width of each light transmissible area 34a, 34b, and 34c is larger than 30 µm with a range for each sub area being from 30 to 2000 µm to improve color perception (Sung: par. 0026 and 0027). Figure 9 shows an embodiment in which area 32, 34a, 34b, and 34c are equal widths (Sung: Fig. 9). Thus, as either 34a, 34b, and/or 34c may be considered the peripheral area, the width ratio of the total light shielding layer (32 + 34a + 34b + 34c) to one of the peripheral area would be about 0.25 which is within the claimed range.
Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the widths of the fading pattern layers to achieve the desired color perception as taught by Sung, such as adjusting the width ratios to be within the claimed range.
Sung does not explicitly teach the edge has a continuous wave shape.
Sunwoo teaches a cover window for a display device comprising an edge which comprises a shock compensation pattern that has concave-convex shape (a continuous wave shape) that is shown to be on the edge of the cover window to prevent in-plane microscopic crack propagation and to disperse stress and shock (Sunwoo: abstract; par. 0002 and 0066).
Sung and Sunwoo are in the corresponding field of cover windows for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the cover window of Sung to have a continuous concave-convex shape (a continuous wave shape) to provide improved shock and crack propagation prevention properties as taught by Sunwoo.
Regarding claim 2,
Sung and Sunwoo teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. Sung further teaches a width of the peripheral area (such as area 34b) is from 30 to 2000 µm (0.03 to 2 mm) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 to 1 mm (Sung: par. 0027).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4,
Sung and Sunwoo teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. Sung further teaches the peripheral area is divided into a first area (34a), directly adjacent to the main body area, and a second area (34b) that is on the edge of the cover plate further away from the main body area (32) compared to the first area (Sung: Fig. 10). The difference of light penetration rate (transmission) between the first and second area is shown in an example to be 25% for the first area (34a) and 50% for the second area (34b) which is a difference of 25% which is within the claimed range of from 5% to 50% (Sung: par. 0028).
Regarding claim 6,
Sung and Sunwoo teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. Sung further teaches a display module (36, a panel) in which the substrate (30) may be considered to be arranged above the panel (36) depending on the orientation of the laminate when viewed (Sung: Fig. 10; par. 0019).
Regarding claim 7,
Sung and Sunwoo teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. Sung further teaches the substrate is a protective cover glass (30) (Sung: par. 0021).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/13/2026 regarding the Section 102 rejection are moot as the rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. The arguments against the Section 103 combination of Sung and Sunwoo has been fully considered but is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the concave-convex wave shape of Sunwoo is disposed on an outer edge rather than an inner edge of the gradient transmittance area as required by claim 1.
The argument is not found persuasive as the claim does not require the claimed “edge” to be placed as “an inner edge” of the gradient area (the peripheral area). The claim requires the peripheral area to be placed between said edge and main body. Thus, the edge being an outer edge reads on the broader claimed placements of the respective areas. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP 2145 VI.
Applicant further argues that Sunwoo cannot provide the advantage at an inner edge of the gradient transmittance area.
The argument is not found persuasive as Sunwoo is not used in the argued manner and the claims do not preclude an outer edge being a continuous wave shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights