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
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Jong et al (US11,513,554B1).
With regards to claim 1, de Jong discloses an electronic device comprising a display cover layer 42 with transparent border structure 16 overlapping a display panel 14 (i.e., a display panel assembly comprising a display panel including a light emitting structure and a film layer disposed under the display panel and overlapping a display panel, as whether or not the film layer is “under” the display panel depends on orientation), the display panel having a rectangular shape with rounded corners, and the display cover layer including a central area having a rectangular planar shape and a peripheral area surrounding the central area (de Jong: abstract; Figs. 1, 4, and 10; col. 5, lines 25-37). In addition, de Jong depicts the film layer as including, in a peripheral area, a thickness change section in which a thickness gradually decreases and then gradually increases in a direction away from the central area (de Jong: Fig. 10). Per at least Figure 10 of de Jong, the film layer is depicted as contacting an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel – whether or not the contacted surface is a “lower” surface depends on the orientation of the display panel.
With regards to claim 2, the film layer includes an edge thickness which is greater than a thickness of the film in a central area. It is noted that, technically, the entire border structure 16 constitutes an “edge” of the film layer (i.e., the “edge” is not necessarily the furthest point from the central area) (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 3, de Jong depicts its peripheral area as including an edge area comprising an edge adjacent area (i.e., an area adjacent to one side of the central area), an edge outer area (i.e., an area adjacent to the edge area and paced apart from the central area), a corner adjacent area in contact with a corner of the central area and the edge adjacent area, and a corner outer area in contact with the corner adjacent area and the edge outer area. In other words, the entire peripheral area of de Jong may be arbitrarily split into four separate areas meeting the present claim (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 4, the thickness of the film layer in the edge outer area gradually decreases and then gradually increases in a direction from the edge adjacent area (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 5, de Jong depicts a first extension direction having a same relative angle with respect to an extension direction of a first side in contact with the corner portion of the central area and an extension direction of a second side in contact with the corner portion of the central area, as each of the claimed areas including an infinite number of extension directions (i.e., as each area extends three-dimensionally) (de Jong: Fig. 10). The thickness of the film layer in the corner adjacent area gradually decreases away from the central area along the first extension direction (de Jong: Fig. 10). It is noted that the claimed extension directions do not have to be facing toward or away from any particular structure relative to the claimed display panel.
With regards to claim 6, a thickness of the film layer in the corner outer area can be considered to gradually increase away from the central area along the first extension direction (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 7, de Jong depicts an upper surface of the film layer as flat (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 8, de Jong depicts a lower surface of the display panel as disposed on an upper surface (i.e., assuming the depicted display panel has been rotated 180 degrees) (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 9, de Jong depicts a thickness of the film area as constant in the central area (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 10, de Jong further discloses the inclusion of an additional layer (i.e., a functional layer) on the display panel (de Jong: col. 9, lines 47-59).
With regards to claim 11, the additional layer may be used to form, for example, a color sensor (i.e., a color conversion layer) (de Jong: col. 9, lines 47-59).
With regards to claim 12, the additional layer may include an adhesive layer (de Jong: col. 8, line 52 through to col. 9, line 3).
With regards to claim 13, de Jong discloses an electronic device comprising a display cover layer 42 with transparent border structure 16 overlapping a display panel 14 (i.e., a display panel assembly comprising a display panel including a light emitting structure and a film layer disposed under the display panel and overlapping a display panel, as whether or not the film layer is “under” the display panel depends on orientation), the display panel having a rectangular shape with rounded corners, and the display cover layer including a central area having a rectangular planar shape and a peripheral area surrounding the central area (de Jong: abstract; Figs. 1, 4, and 10; col. 5, lines 25-37). In addition, de Jong depicts the film layer as including, in a peripheral area, a thickness change section in which a thickness gradually decreases and then gradually increases in a direction away form the central area, and further, de Jong depicts a third peripheral area, such that the second peripheral area has a thickness smaller than the third peripheral area (de Jong: Fig. 10). Per at least Figure 10 of de Jong, the film layer is depicted as contacting an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel – whether or not the contacted surface is a “lower” surface depends on the orientation of the display panel.
With regards to claim 14, it is noted that the thickness of the film area in each of the first, second, and third peripheral areas is constant, since in each area, thickness is measured instantaneously (i.e., at a particular point, with respect to each of the areas) (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 15, the thickness of the film area in the first peripheral area is equal to the thickness of the film layer in the third peripheral area (i.e., as the first and third peripheral areas are located at opposite sides of second peripheral area, and since the second peripheral area has a minimum local thickness with respect to the cover layer, there must exist first and third areas which are equal) (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 16, the thickness of the film area in the first peripheral area is equal to a thickness of the film in the second area (i.e., as the first area is immediately adjacent the central area) (de Jong: Fig. 10).
With regards to claim 17, de Jong further discloses the inclusion of an additional layer (i.e., a second layer) on the display panel (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 18, de Jong further discloses the inclusion of an additional layer (i.e., a functional layer) on the display panel (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 19, the additional layer may be used to form, for example, a color sensor (i.e., a color conversion layer) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 20, the additional layer may include an adhesive layer (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Several of Applicant’s arguments/amendment in the response filed May 22nd, 2026, have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. The film layer 42/44 of de Jong does not directly contact an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel 14. Therefore, the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn. However, the combination of elements 42/44 and 16 of de Jong are considered to constitute a film layer which is in direct contact with an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel 14, and therefore, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are made in reliance of this new interpretation.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive
On pages 7-8, Applicant summarizes the claimed invention. Applicant then argues element 42/44 of de Jong as not constituting a “film layer”, and that not all layers would qualify as a “film” and is instead a cover layer. Applicant argues that the Office Action has failed to establish why elements 42/44 qualifies as a film. These arguments are not found persuasive. Claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. In the current case, the present specification does not provide any particular limit as to the structure imbued by the term “film layer”. The present drawings depict a film which, as best understood, is structurally similar to the film of de Jong, and further, paragraph [0053] discloses the claimed film layer as covering a lower surface of the display panel (i.e., as a cover layer). It is possible Applicant believes that the phrase “film layer” limits to a specific thickness. However, paragraphs [0064] and [0066] use the term “may” in describing the claimed film, and therefore, no particular thickness is required (i.e., the present specification actually describes the term “film layer” in a manner which is broader than that conventionally known in the art). Therefore, due to the breadth of the term “film layer” as described in the present specification, elements 42/44 are considered to constitute a film layer. It is further unclear from Applicant’s arguments how the claimed “film layer” is structurally different from that of the claimed invention.
On pages 8-9, Applicant summarizes the present claim amendments. Applicant argues that film layer 42/44 does not directly contact an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel 14, as the film layer 42/44 moves away from the display panel 14 at the peripheral thereof. The Examiner agrees. However, the combination of layer 42/44 and border structure 16 constitutes a film layer which directly contacts an entirety of a lower surface of the display panel 14.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 V. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights