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 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 03/26/2026 have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The Section 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
However, new Section 102 and 103 rejections have been implemented upon further search and consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sung et al. (US 2014/0133046 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.
Regarding claim 4,
Sung 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 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 teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. Sung further teaches the substrate is a protective cover glass (30) (Sung: par. 0021).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung.
Regarding claim 2,
Sung 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 5,
Sung teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Sunwoo et al. (US 2022/0263043 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Sung teaches the electronic device required by claim 1. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/26/2026 are moot as they do not pertain to the updated prior art of record.
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 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