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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 14 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 November 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0199920) in view of Goto (US 2010/0035407).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a display device manufacturing method comprising forming a display panel (Fig. 9, Element 10; ¶ [0124]) on a processing substrate (Fig. 10E, Element SS; ¶ [0072]) by forming a base layer (Fig. 9, Element 100; ¶ [0071]) comprising a colorless polyimide layer (¶s [0082], [0089]), and a functional layer (Fig. 9, Element 100d; ¶ [0090]); and separating the display panel from the processing substrate by emitting laser (¶ [0247]).
Kim teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the laser having an intensity such that about 90% of a maximum intensity is about 6.0 MW/cm2 to about 6.8 MW/cm2.
Goto teaches a display device manufacturing method including a step of separating a polyimide layer from a processing substrate using a laser having an intensity of 0.01 MW/cm2 to 100 MW/cm2 (¶ [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide display device manufacturing method of Kim with the process taught by Goto for separating the display panel from the processing substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the colorless polyimide layer comprises a fully aromatic polyimide comprising at least one of a trifluoromethyl group, an ether group, or a sulfonyl group (¶ [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner notes that if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (MPEP § 2112.01(II)). Kim teaches the base layer being comprised of colorless polyimide, which typically exhibits optical transmittance greater than about 89% and low yellow index of less than 2. (See, for example, https://fuentek.com/technologies/CPI/kolon-cpi-colorless-polyimide-films/).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the functional layer comprising a silicon oxide (¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the colorless polyimide layer comprises a first colorless polyimide layer (Fig. 9, Element 100a; ¶ [0082]) and a second colorless polyimide layer (Fig. 9, Element 100c; ¶ [0089]), and wherein the forming of the base layer comprises forming the first colorless polyimide layer on the processing substrate, forming a first barrier layer (Fig. 9, Element 100b; ¶ [0083]) on the first colorless polyimide layer, forming the second colorless polyimide layer on the first barrier layer, forming the functional layer on the second colorless polyimide layer, and forming a second barrier layer (Fig. 9, Element 111; ¶ [0161]) on the functional layer.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Goto teaches the limitations of claim 7 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the forming of the functional layer comprises forming the functional layer to a thickness of about 500 Å to about 5000 Å.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device manufacturing method taught by the combination of Kim and Goto with a step of forming of the functional layer comprises forming the functional layer to a thickness of about 500 Å to about 5000 Å, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches in the separating of the display panel, the laser having a wavelength of about 300 nm to about 400 nm (¶ [0247]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches in the separating of the display panel, the laser emitted in a direction from the processing substrate toward the display panel (Fig. 10E; ¶ [0247]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the forming of the display panel comprising forming a circuit layer (Fig. 9, Element PC; ¶ [0161]) on the base layer, forming a light-emitting element layer (Fig. 9, Element OLED; ¶ [0161]) on the circuit layer, and forming an encapsulation layer (Fig. 9, Element 300; ¶ [0161]) on the light-emitting element layer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0199920) and Goto (US 2010/0035407) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa (US 2019/0019951).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim and Goto teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify forming, on the processing substrate, a sacrificial layer comprising amorphous silicon, wherein the forming of the display panel comprises forming the display panel on the sacrificial layer.
Nakagawa teaches a method of forming, on a processing substrate (Fig. 4C, Element 200; ¶ [0043]), a sacrificial layer (Fig. 4C, Element 120; ¶ [0043]) comprising amorphous silicon (¶ [0057]), wherein the forming of a display panel (Fig. 4C, Element 70; ¶ [0056]) comprises forming the display panel on the sacrificial layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method taught by the combination of Kim and Goto with the steps taught by Nakagawa for obtaining a low close-adhesion state in which the base material is partially peeled from the sacrificial layer (¶ [0057]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of record (Kim) neither shows or suggests a display manufacturing method comprising, in addition to other limitations of the claim, forming the colorless polyimide layer by applying a colorless polyimide material, curing the colorless polyimide material at a curing temperature that is higher than about 430℃ and that is lower than or equal to about 470℃ for about 10 minutes to about 30 minutes, and cooling the colorless polyimide material with outside air.
Due to its dependency upon claim 2, claim 3 is also allowable.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art of record (Kim) neither shows or suggests a display manufacturing method comprising, in addition to other limitations of the claim, in the separating of the display panel, a minor axis of the laser has a width of about 370 μm to about 400 μm and a steepness of about 30 μm to about 60 μm.
Regarding independent claim 14, the closest prior art of record (Kim) neither shows or suggests a display manufacturing method comprising, in addition to other limitations of the claim, forming a display panel on a processing substrate by forming a first colorless polyimide layer on the processing substrate, forming a first barrier layer on the first colorless polyimide layer, forming a second colorless polyimide layer on the first barrier layer, wherein the forming of the first colorless polyimide layer or the forming of the second colorless polyimide layer comprises applying a colorless polyimide material, curing the colorless polyimide material at a curing temperature that is higher than about 430℃ and that is lower than or equal to about 470℃ for about 10 minutes to about 30 minutes, and cooling the colorless polyimide material with outside air.
Due to their dependencies upon independent claim 14, claims 15-18 are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (US 2023/0108673) teaches a display panel with a blind hole provided on a substrate. Cha (US 2023/0022035) teaches a display device with a substrate including a main area and a sub-area. Kang (US 2022/0223820) teaches a display device including a cover window with a side portion being bent about a first axis. Hou (US 2022/0115452) teaches a display device with a first display area having a pixel density more than that of a second display area. Fukushima (US 2014/0320777) teaches a display device with a TFT substrate formed on a plastic substrate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 2 March 2026