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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitations of “an output power in a range of about 20 W to about 50 W” and “an output power in a range of about 1 W to about 20 W” are indefinite. For purposes of examination the limitations are understood to be “an output power in a range of about 20 W to
The term “substantially” in claims 2 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitations of “the preliminary foldable module is substantially integrally cut.” is indefinite. For purposes of examination the limitations are understood to be “the preliminary foldable module is
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Okuma (US11872655B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches A method of manufacturing a display device (100), the method comprising:
preparing a preliminary foldable module (Col. 5 lines 55-60 a display device 100 may be a foldable display device) including a window module (PN2, PN3), a display panel (PN1) disposed on the window module (PN2, PN3), a panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 35-45 a second protective layer (not illustrated) disposed below the display panel PN1) disposed on the display panel (PN1), and a support plate (111) disposed on the panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 35-45 a second protective layer (not illustrated) disposed below the display panel PN1, which is above 111);
performing a first cutting operation (384a), the first cutting operation including cutting the support plate (111 of mother panel 700) with a first laser beam (384a);
performing a second cutting operation of sequentially cutting the panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 35-45 a second protective layer (not illustrated) disposed below the display panel PN1), the display panel (PN1) , and the window module (PN2, PN3) with the second laser beam (384b, Col. 17 lines 55-67, laser lights 384 a and 384 b emitted to the mother bonding panel 900 pass through the mother panel 700 first, and then through the mother polarization plate 800, where mother panel 700 is oriented as in Fig. 2, so it is understood the layers are sequentially cut).
Kang is silent on detecting, by a laser-sensing part, reflected light that is reflected from a surface of the panel protective layer exposed by cutting the support plate, and changing the first laser beam to a second laser beam.
Okuma teaches detecting, by a laser-sensing part (488, where “a laser-sensing part” is understood to be a laser sensor or the like), reflected light (LL) that is reflected from a surface of the panel protective layer (1b) exposed by cutting the support plate (1b), and changing the first laser beam to a second laser beam (Col. 2 lines 55-67; Col. 27 lines 40-67 second processing, the controller may cause the spatial light modulator to present the modulation pattern so that the spot shape of the laser light on the first surface in the first processing is different from the spot shape of the laser light on the reference surface in the second processing).
Kang and Okuma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang to incorporate the teachings of Okuma to detect a surface of the cut object to change the first beam to a second beam so that the workpiece may be treated and cut at the desired power density in such a way that suppresses damage to the workpiece being processed (Okuma Col. 1 lines 30-67).
Regarding claim 4, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches the reflected light is not detected by the laser-sensing part in the first cutting operation (111, Col. 9 lines 30-50 where when base layer 111, made of kapton, polyethersulphone (“PES”), PC, PI, PET, polyethylene naphthalate (“PEN”), polyacrylate (“PAR”), fiber reinforced plastic (“FRP”), and the like, would be known not to reflect laser light based on composition, so it would be understood reflected light would not be detected), but is silent on the reflected light is detected by the laser-sensing part in the second cutting operation.
Okuma teaches the reflected light (LR) is detected by the laser-sensing part (488) in the second cutting operation (Col. 18 lines 15-45 second processing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang to incorporate the teachings of Okuma to detect reflected light in view of a second cutting operation to further monitor and adjust the laser for further processing of the workpiece (Okuma Col. 18 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 5, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches wherein an intensity of the first laser beam is greater than an intensity of the second laser beam (Col. 17 lines 5-35 The laser light 384a (hereinafter, "first laser light") emitted to a first partial cutting line 15a may have an intensity stronger than an intensity of the laser light 384b (hereinafter, "second laser light") emitted to a second partial cutting line 15b).
Regarding claim 6, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches wherein the first laser beam has an output power in a range of about 20 W to about 50 W (Col. 17 lines 5-35 the first laser light 384a may be emitted with a power in a range from about 15 watts (W) to about 25 W); and
the second laser beam has an output power in a range of about 1 W to about 20 W (Col. 17 lines 5-35 the second laser light 384b may be emitted with a power in a range from about 3 W to about 10 W).
Regarding claim 7, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam (384a, 348b) are each emitted from the support plate (111) towards the panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 40-67 protective layer; the laser lights 384 a and 384 b are emitted in a Z-axis direction (or a thickness direction of the mother bonding panel 900) from below the mother bonding panel 900 toward the mother bonding panel 900. ).
Regarding claim 10, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches the preliminary foldable module (100) further comprises at least one adhesive layer (AL1, AL2); and
the at least one adhesive layer (AL1, AL2) is cut by the second laser beam in the second cutting operation (384b).
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Okuma (US11872655B2)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN108333820A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 2, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on the first laser beam and the second laser beam are output from a same laser apparatus, and the first and second laser beams differ from each other only based on laser beam conditions; and the preliminary foldable module is substantially integrally cut.
Li teaches the first laser beam (B) and the second laser beam (C) are output from a same laser apparatus ([0066] second and third laser beams can be emitted from the same laser emitter), and the first and second laser beams (B,C) differ from each other only based on laser beam conditions ([0067] two different depths of cutting can be achieved by adjusting the parameters of the laser emitter); and
the preliminary foldable module (M) is substantially integrally cut ([0069] cut target, where the target is the equivalent of the preliminary foldable module).
Kang, Okuma, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the first and second beams be from the same emitter that differ based on laser beam conditions so that different laser beams may be applied to the workpiece to efficiently achieve two different depths of cutting based on desired specifications for cutting a display screen and the like (Li [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the first cutting operation and the second cutting operation are performed in one cutting stage.
Li teaches wherein the first cutting operation (B, S3) and the second cutting operation (C, S4) are performed in one cutting stage ([0058] one cutting process, taken to be the equivalent of one cutting stage).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the first and second cutting operation be performed in one stage so that different laser beams may be applied to the workpiece to efficiently achieve two different depths of cutting based on desired specifications for cutting a display screen and the like (Li [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, and Kang teaches the window module (PN2, PN3) comprises a window protective layer (Col. 17 lines 50-60 a protective film PF including acryl may be attached to polarization film PN2); and in the first cutting operation the support plate (111 of mother panel 700) is cut to form cut side surfaces (Fig. 11) each have a step (Fig. 11), but is silent on in the second cutting operation, the panel protective layer, the display panel, and the window protective layer are cut to form cut side surfaces, the cut side surfaces each have a step less than or equal to about 100 μm.
Li teaches in the second cutting operation (S4), the support plate, the panel protective layer (101), the display panel (102), and the window protective layer (103) are cut to form cut side surfaces (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Li to form cut sides on each of the layers so that the side surfaces may have edges that can be adjusted separately to achieve a desired flexible shape (Li [0069-0070]).
Kang, Okuma, and Li do not teach the cut side surfaces each have a step less than or equal to about 100 μm. However, applicant has not stated the step height provide any unexpected or synergetic results. As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the grooves as taught by the combination of Kang, Okuma, and Li to have the dimensions claimed as when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a scaling or dimension which does not provide a new or unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate see MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Okuma (US11872655B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 7834451 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Kang and Okuma teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic.
Lee teaches wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic (Col. 1 lines 40-50 the support plate may be formed from a light metal like the aluminum or the synthetic resins such as a Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic).
Kang, Okuma, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Lee to the support plate be a carbon fiber reinforced plastic so that the display device may be made light and thin while also being able to support a flexible film placed on the support plate (Lee Col. 3 lines 10-25).
Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Okuma (US11872655B2) and further in view of Lee (US 7834451).
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
preparing a preliminary foldable module (Col. 5 lines 55-60 a display device 100 may be a foldable display device) including a first group (111) including a support plate (111) and a second group (PN1, PN2, PN3) including a display panel (PN1), the first group (111) is disposed on the second group (PN1, PN2, PN3) ;
performing a first cutting operation (Col. 17 lines 55-67), the first cutting operation including cutting the first group (111 of mother panel 700) with a first laser beam (384a);
performing a second cutting operation (Col. 17 lines 55-67) of cutting the second group (PN1, PN2, PN3) with the second laser beam (384b).
Kang is silent on detecting, by a laser-sensing part, reflected light that is reflected from a surface of the second group exposed by cutting the first group, and changing the first laser beam to a second laser beam; and wherein the support plate includes a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic.
Okuma teaches detecting, by a laser-sensing part (488, where “a laser-sensing part” is understood to be a laser sensor or the like), reflected light (LL) that is reflected from a surface of the second group (1b) exposed by cutting the first group (1b), and changing the first laser beam to a second laser beam (Col. 2 lines 55-67; Col. 27 lines 40-67 second processing, the controller may cause the spatial light modulator to present the modulation pattern so that the spot shape of the laser light on the first surface in the first processing is different from the spot shape of the laser light on the reference surface in the second processing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang to incorporate the teachings of Okuma to detect a surface of the cut object to change the first beam to a second beam so that the workpiece may be treated and cut at the desired power density in such a way that suppresses damage to the workpiece being processed (Okuma Col. 1 lines 30-67).
Kang and Okuma are silent on wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic.
Lee teaches wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic (Col. 1 lines 40-50 the support plate may be formed from a light metal like the aluminum or the synthetic resins such as a Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Okuma to incorporate the teachings of Lee to the support plate be a carbon fiber reinforced plastic so that the display device may be made light and thin while also being able to support a flexible film placed on the support plate (Lee Col. 3 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 12, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, and Kang teaches wherein the second group further comprises:
a window module (PN2, PN3) disposed under the display panel (PN1); and
a panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 45-55 first protective layer) disposed above the display panel (PN1).
Regarding claim 13, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, and Kang teaches the support plate (111) does not reflect the first laser beam (Col. 9 lines 30-50 base layer 111 may include one of: kapton, polyethersulphone (“PES”), PC, PI, PET, polyethylene naphthalate (“PEN”), polyacrylate (“PAR”), fiber reinforced plastic (“FRP”), and the like; of which the materials are known not to reflect laser light), but is silent on the second group reflects the first laser beam and the second laser beam.
Okuma teaches the second group reflects (1) the first laser beam (LL) and the second laser beam (LR, Col. 18 lines 15-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang to incorporate the teachings of Okuma to detect reflected light in view of a second cutting operation to further monitor and adjust the laser for further processing of the workpiece (Okuma Col. 18 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 16, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, and Kang teaches wherein an intensity of the first laser beam is greater than an intensity of the second laser beam (Col. 17 lines 5-35 The laser light 384a (hereinafter, "first laser light") emitted to a first partial cutting line 15a may have an intensity stronger than an intensity of the laser light 384b (hereinafter, "second laser light") emitted to a second partial cutting line 15b).
Regarding claim 17, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 12, and Kang teaches wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam (384a, 348b) are each emitted from the support plate (111) towards the panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 40-67 protective layer; the laser lights 384 a and 384 b are emitted in a Z-axis direction (or a thickness direction of the mother bonding panel 900) from below the mother bonding panel 900 toward the mother bonding panel 900).
Regarding claim 18, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, and Kang teaches the second group further comprises at least one adhesive layer (AL1, AL2); and
the at least one adhesive layer (AL1, AL2) is cut by the second laser beam in the second cutting operation (384b).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Okuma (US11872655B2) and further in view of Lee (US 7834451) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Li (CN108333820A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 14, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, but are silent on the first laser beam and the second laser beam are output from a same laser apparatus, and the first and second laser beams differ from each other only based on laser beam conditions; and the preliminary foldable module is substantially integrally cut.
Li teaches the first laser beam (B) and the second laser beam (C) are output from a same laser apparatus ([0066] second and third laser beams can be emitted from the same laser emitter), and the first and second laser beams (B,C) differ from each other only based on laser beam conditions ([0067] two different depths of cutting can be achieved by adjusting the parameters of the laser emitter); and
the preliminary foldable module (M) is substantially integrally cut ([0069] cut target, where the target is the equivalent of the preliminary foldable module).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang, Okuma, and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the first and second beams be from the same emitter that differ based on laser beam conditions so that different laser beams may be applied to the workpiece to efficiently achieve two different depths of cutting based on desired specifications for cutting a display screen and the like (Li [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Kang, Okuma, and Lee teach the method of claim 11, but are silent on wherein the first cutting operation and the second cutting operation are performed in one cutting stage.
Li teaches wherein the first cutting operation (B, S3) and the second cutting operation (C, S4) are performed in one cutting stage ([0058] one cutting process, taken to be the equivalent of one cutting stage).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang, Okuma, and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the first and second cutting operation be performed in one stage so that different laser beams may be applied to the workpiece to efficiently achieve two different depths of cutting based on desired specifications for cutting a display screen and the like (Li [0067]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Li (CN108333820A) and further in view of Lee (US 7834451 B2) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 19, Kang teaches A display device comprising:
a support plate (111);
a panel protective layer disposed on the support plate (Col. 16 lines 35-45 a second protective layer (not illustrated) disposed below the display panel PN1, which is above 111);
a display panel (PN1) disposed on the panel protective layer (Col. 16 lines 35-45 a second protective layer (not illustrated) disposed below the display panel PN1); and
a window module (PN2, PN3) including a window protective layer, the window module (PN2, PN3) is disposed on the display panel (PN1),
a side surface of the support plate (111 of mother panel 700) has a step (Fig. 11).
Kang is silent on wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic, a side surface of each of the support plate, the panel protective layer, the display panel, and the window protective layer has a step less than or equal to about 100 μm.
Li teaches a side surface of each of the panel protective layer (101), the display panel (102), and the window protective layer (103) has a step (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang to incorporate the teachings of Li to form cut sides on each of the layers so that the side surfaces may have edges that can be adjusted separately to achieve a desired flexible shape (Li [0069-0070]).
Kang and Li are silent on wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic; the cut side surfaces each have a step less than or equal to about 100 μm.
Lee teaches wherein the support plate comprises a carbon fiber reinforced plastic, a glass fiber reinforced plastic, or a carbon-glass hybrid fiber reinforced plastic (Col. 1 lines 40-50 the support plate may be formed from a light metal like the aluminum or the synthetic resins such as a Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang and Li to incorporate the teachings of Lee to the support plate be a carbon fiber reinforced plastic so that the display device may be made light and thin while also being able to support a flexible film placed on the support plate (Lee Col. 3 lines 10-25).
Kang, Li, and Lee do not teach the cut side surfaces each have a step less than or equal to about 100 μm. However, applicant has not stated the step height provide any unexpected or synergetic results. As such it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the grooves as taught by the combination of Kang, Li, and Lee to have the dimensions claimed as when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a scaling or dimension which does not provide a new or unexpected result a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate see MPEP §2144.04.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US11874483B2) in view of Li (CN108333820A) and further in view of Lee (US 7834451 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cho (US20220238821A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kang, Li, and Lee the display device of claim 19, but are silent on further comprising a digitizer disposed below the support plate.
Cho teaches further comprising a digitizer (3300) disposed below the support plate (3200 [0152]).
Kang, Li, Lee, and Cho are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser cutting. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kang, Li, and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Cho to have a digitizer below the support plate in order to enable use of an active stylus pen to improve the experience of the display device (Cho [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights