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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2021/0127517).
Re claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a display panel (Fig. 2A) (DP) including a front area (FS) having a flat surface ([0054]), side areas having curved surfaces (CS1-CS4), and corner areas (DCS1-DCS4) located between two adjacent side areas among the side areas, respectively; and a first transparent layer (ARL~ [0070]) disposed on the display panel (DP) and including a flat surface (FAP) on the front area and a curved surface (CAP1-CAP4) on each of the side areas, wherein the first transparent layer (ARL) has a thickness on each of the side areas (CAP1-CAP4) different from a thickness (d1/d2/d3) ([0086-0087]) on the front area (FA) (Fig 3A).
Re claim 2, Kim et al. disclose wherein the thickness of the first transparent layer on each of the side areas gradually decreases in a direction away from a boundary of the first transparent layer between each of the side areas and the front area (Fig. 3A).
Re claim 3, Kim et al. wherein the first transparent layer includes a cured resin ([00701]).
Re claim 4, Kim et al. disclose wherein the first transparent layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-based resin, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, and a methylated melamine resin ([0070]~ all are clear resin).
Re claim 6, Kim et al. disclose further comprising a protective film (WM) disposed under the display panel (DP) and including a flat surface under the front area (FA) and a curved surface (CS1-CS4) under each of the side areas (Fig. 3A & [0052]).
Re claim 7, Kim et al. disclose further comprising a first adhesive layer (ARL) disposed between the protective film (WM) and the display panel (DP) and including a flat surface (FAP) under the front area (FA) and a curved surface (CS1-CD4) under each of the side areas.
Re claim 8, Kim et al. disclose further comprising a window (WM) disposed on the first transparent layer (ARL) and including a flat surface (FAP) on the front area (FA) and a curved surface (CS1-CS4) on each of the side areas.
Re claim 9, Kim et al. disclose further comprising a second adhesive layer (ARM) disposed between the first transparent layer (ARL) and the window (WM) and including a flat surface on the front area and a curved surface on each of the side areas.
Re claim 12, Kim et al. disclose further comprising a second transparent layer (ARM2) disposed on the first transparent layer (ARL) and including a flat surface on the front area and a curved surface on each of the side areas, and the second transparent layer has a thickness on each of the side areas different from a thickness on the front area (Fig. 6).
Re claim 13, Kim et al. disclose wherein the thickness of the second transparent layer on each of the side areas gradually decreases in a direction away from a boundary of the second transparent layer between each of the side areas and the front area (Fig. 6).
Re claim 14, Kim et al. disclose wherein the second transparent layer includes a cured resin ([0113]).
Re claim 15, Kim et al. disclose wherein the second transparent layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-based 15 resin, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, and a methylated melamine resin ([0108]- they are all clear materials).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 and 12-15 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claim 5, Kim et al. disclose a double curvature of the display panel in each of the corner areas (DCS1-DCS4).
Kim et al. does not clearly disclose 1, wherein a double curvature of the display panel in each of the corner areas is equal to or greater than about 400 micrometers (um) and equal to or less than about 1000 micrometers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited size through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of curvature size, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed size or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen size or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen size is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claims 10, 11, 16-18 and 19, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness and layer modulus, through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness and layer modulus, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness and layer modulus or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness and layer modulus or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness and layer modulus are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 19, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a third transparent layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claim 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect thickness of the third transparent layer on each of the side areas gradually decreases in a direction away from a boundary of the third transparent layer between each of the side areas and the front area, since the third transparent layer would be formed on the second transparent layer and each of the layers follow the same pattern.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2016/0324018, US 2024/0407217, US 12,295,244 and US 2022/0005877 disclose a similar configuration of a display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 December 8, 2025