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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to the title objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, & 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268523) [Hereinafter Kim].
Regarding claim 1 Kim teaches A display device comprising:
a display panel [fig. 3, display apparatus 1000, para 27] comprising a non-bending region [fig. 3, flat portion FA, para 27] and a bending region [fig. 3, curved portions BA1/BA2, para 28] that extends from an end of the non-bending region (fig. 3, FA) and that is bent [fig. 3];
a protective layer [fig. 3, protective layer 315, para 58] disposed on a lower surface of the display panel (fig. 3, 1000);
a light blocking pattern [fig. 3, light blocking member 330, para 43] overlapping the bending region (fig. 3, BA1/BA2) in a plan view (fig. 3),
partially disposed on an upper surface of the display panel (fig. 3, 1000), and contacting a side surface of the protective layer (fig. 3, 315; wherein layer 330 indirectly contacts an upper side surface of protective layer 315) and the bending region (fig. 3, BA1/BA2); and
a coating window [fig. 3, buffering member 340, para 45] disposed directly on the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330) and comprising a resin material [para 45, “The buffering member 340 may be formed of, for example, a polymer resin, e.g., polyurethane, polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyethylene, etc.”].
Kim fails to explicitly disclose in fig. 3 the light blocking pattern directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer and directly contacting the bending region.
However, Kim teaches in fig. 6 the light blocking pattern (fig. 6, 330) directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer (fig. 6, 315) and directly contacting the bending region (fig. 6, BA1/BA2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light blocking pattern to directly contact a side surface of the protective layer and the bending region to eliminate edge light leakage and reflection.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330) covers a bent portion of the bending region (fig. 3, BA1/BA2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1, further comprising
a bending protective layer [fig. 3, buffering member 350, para 52], which is disposed on the display panel and which is bent together with the bending region (fig. 3, BA1/BA2),
wherein the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330) is in contact with the bending protective layer (fig. 3, 350).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330) covers a side surface of the display panel on a cross section (fig. 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-2 & 6-7 and further in view of Kishimoto et al. (EP3282498) [Hereinafter Kishimoto].
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking pattern comprises:
a first light blocking pattern disposed between the bending region and a side surface of the protective layer; and
a second light blocking pattern disposed on the bending region and adjacent to an outside portion of the bending region.
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein the light blocking pattern comprises:
a first light blocking pattern [fig. 3A, protection layer 301, para 143] disposed between the bending region [fig. 3A, bending region 50, para 58] and a side surface [left side surface] of the protective layer [fig. 3A, adhesive layer 302, para 62]; and
a second light blocking pattern [fig. 3A, protection layer 302, para 143] disposed on the bending region [fig. 3A, 50] and adjacent to an outside portion of the bending region [fig. 3A, 50].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light blocking patterns to be disposed between the bending region and side surface of protective layer to conceal internal components and prevent stray light leakage.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-2 & 6-7 and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2017/0338286) [Hereinafter Oh].
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose an optical unit disposed between the display panel and the coating window and overlapping the non-bending region,
wherein the coating window is disposed directly on the optical unit.
Oh teaches an optical unit [fig. 10, reflection-prevention layer RPL, para 82] disposed between the display panel [fig. 10, pixel layer PXL, para 76] and the coating window [fig. 10, window coating layer WL1, para 67] and overlapping the non-bending region [fig. 10, non-bending area NBA1/NBA2, para 155],
wherein the coating window (fig. 10, WL1) is disposed directly on the optical unit (fig. 10, RPL).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the optical unit between the display panel and coating window to eliminate air gaps for better optical performance and improve contrast and brightness.
Regarding claim 5, Kim/Oh teaches The display device of claim 4, wherein a portion of the light blocking pattern [Oh, fig. 10, black matrix BM, para 84] is disposed directly on the optical unit (Oh, fig. 10, RPL).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-2 & 6-7 and further in view of Kishimoto & Kim et al. (US 2021/0320137) [Hereinafter Kim_2021].
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches The display device of claim 1.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking pattern comprises:
a lower light blocking pattern contacting the bending region and a side surface of the protective layer; and
an upper light blocking pattern disposed above the lower light blocking pattern and comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern.
However, Kishimoto teaches wherein the light blocking pattern comprises:
a lower light blocking pattern [fig. 3B, protection layer 303, para 65; wherein para 36 discloses the protection layer comprises light blocking material.] contacting the bending region [fig 3B; wherein layer 303 contacts the bended region] and a side surface of the protective layer [fig. 3B, adhesive layer 304, para 65; wherein the adhesive layer seals/protects against contaminants and impact]; and
an upper light blocking pattern [fig. 3B, protection layer 301, para 62; wherein para 36 discloses the protection layer comprises light blocking material.] disposed above the lower light blocking pattern (fig. 3B, 303).
Kim/Koshimoto fails to explicitly disclose the upper light blocking pattern comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern.
However Kim_2021 teaches the upper light blocking pattern [fig. 8A, upper light shielding layer LBL2, para 160] comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern [fig. 8A, lower light shielding layer LBL1, para 160].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper and lower light shielding layers to comprise different material to improve visual comfort and optical performance of the device.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim & Lee et al. (US 2022/0011623) [Hereinafter Lee].
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches A display device comprising:
a display panel [fig. 2, display apparatus 1000, para 30] comprising
a display region [fig. 2, display area 200-AR, para 33] and
a non-display region [fig. 2, non-display area 200-BR, para 33] surrounding the display region [fig. 2];
a first circuit board [fig. 2, FPCB, para 37], which is connected to the display panel [para 37] and which is bent [para 37];
a protective layer [fig. 2, protective layer 315, para 60] disposed on a lower surface of the display panel (fig. 3, 200);
a light blocking pattern [fig. 3, light blocking member 330, para 43] overlapping a bent portion [fig. 3, BA1/BA2, para 28] of the first circuit board in a plan view [wherein fig. 2 & 3 illustrate the flexible circuit board FPCB is bent to a lower side of the cover panel 300 and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the light blocking pattern to overlap all of panel 200 as shown in fig. 2], partially disposed on an upper surface of the display panel (fig. 3,1000), and contacting a side surface of the protective layer [fig. 3, wherein the pattern 330 indirectly contacts three sides of layer 315] and a bent portion of the first circuit board [fig. 2/3; wherein indirect contact is inclusive based on broadness of claim language.]; and
a coating window [fig. 3, buffering member 340, para 45] disposed directly on the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330) and comprising a resin material [para 45].
Kim fails to explicitly disclose in fig. 3 the light blocking pattern directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer and directly contacting a bent portion of the first circuit board.
However, Kim teaches in fig. 6 the light blocking pattern (fig. 6, 330) directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer (fig. 6, 315).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the light blocking pattern directly contacting a bent portion of the first circuit board.
However Lee teaches the light blocking pattern [fig. 3, light blocking chassis 200, para 74-75] directly contacting a bent portion of the first circuit board [fig. 3, printed circuit board 130, para 69].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light blocking pattern to directly contact a bent portion of the first circuit board to block side/backlight leakage and eliminate boarder halo effects.
Regarding claim 11 Kim/Lee teaches, The display device of claim 10,
wherein the light blocking pattern (Kim, fig. 3, 330) covers the bent portion of the first circuit board [Kim, fig. 2/3 wherein the blocking pattern 330 overlaps the flexible circuit board FPCB as it is positioned below the panel 200].
Regarding claim 12, Kim/Lee teaches The display device of claim 10, wherein the light blocking pattern (Kim, fig. 3, 330) covers a side surface of the display panel (Kim, fig. 2/3, 1000) on a cross section (Kim, fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim & Lee as applied to claims 10-12 and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0242457) [Hereinafter Lee_2017].
Regarding claim 13, Kim/Lee teaches the display device of claim 10 further comprising: a touch sensing panel disposed on the display panel and configured to sense an input signal [para 39].
Kim/Lee fails to explicitly disclose a second circuit board which is bent, connected to the touch sensing panel, and configured to transmit the input signal.
However, Lee_2017 teaches a second circuit board which is bent [fig. 1, second flexible circuit board 800, para 82], connected to the touch sensing panel [fig. 1, touch panel 910, para 82], and configured to transmit the input signal [para 53].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flexible circuit board to be connected to the touch sensing panel to serve as an electrical interface enabling the device to detect and interpret user input.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hwang (US 2016/0009956) [Hereinafter Hwang], & Choi et al. (US 2018/0019293) [Hereinafter Choi].
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches A method for manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
preparing a preliminary display device comprising
a display panel [fig. 3, display apparatus 1000, para 25] and
a protective layer [fig. 3, protective layer 315, para 60] disposed on a lower surface of the display panel (fig. 3, 1000);
bending the display panel portion [fig. 3, bending area BA1/BA2, para 28] or a first circuit board coupled to the display panel;
forming a light blocking pattern [fig. 3, light blocking member 330, para 43] in contact with a side surface of the protective layer (fig. 3, 315; indirect contact inclusive), partially disposed on an upper surface of the display panel (fig. 3, 1000), and in contact with the display panel portion or the first circuit board;
providing a resin material [fig. 3, buffering member 340, para 45] on the light blocking pattern (fig. 3, 330).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose in fig. 3 the light blocking pattern directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer.
However, Kim teaches in fig. 6 the light blocking pattern (fig. 6, 330) directly contacting a side surface of the protective layer (fig. 6, 315).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light blocking pattern to directly contact a side surface of the protective layer and the bending region to eliminate edge light leakage and reflection.
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the light blocking pattern in direct contact with the display panel portion or the first circuit board.
However, Choi teaches the light blocking pattern [fig. 3, light blocking layer 11, para 56] in direct contact with the display panel portion [fig. 3, display panel 10, para 56] or the first circuit board.
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light blocking layer to directly contact the display panel so that the inside of the display panel can be prevented from being seen.
Kim/Choi fails to explicitly disclose disposing a bent preliminary display device on a jig;
forming a first coating window by curing the resin material.
However Hwang teaches disposing a bent preliminary display device [fig. 6, display panel 300, para 77] on a jig [fig. 6 JIG];
forming a first coating window [fig. 6, photocurable adhesive 120, para 70] by curing the resin material [para 7 teaches the use of cured resin material is known in the art. Furthermore para 60 teaches the adhesive to carry characteristics similar to that of resin].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the display device on a jig and form a coating window by curing the resin material to ensure accurate alignment and high quality coating application which improves device reliability.
Regarding claim 16, Kim/Hwang/Choi teaches The method of claim 15.
wherein the forming of the light blocking pattern comprises:
making a filling with a light blocking material [Choi, fig. 3, light blocking layer 11, para 55] which comes in contact with the display panel portion [Choi, fig. 3, display panel 10, para 54] or the first circuit board; and
curing the light blocking material [Choi, para 60].
Regarding claim 17, Kim/Choi/Hwang teaches The method of claim 15,
wherein a step difference [Hwang, fig. 6] corresponding to a side surface of the first coating window [Hwang, fig. 6, 120] is defined on one side surface of the jig [Hwang, fig. 6, Jig].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hwang, & Choi as applied to claims 15-17 and further in view of Chiba (JP2013018658A) [Hereinafter Chiba].
Regarding claim 18 Kim/Hwang/Choi teaches The method of claim 15.
Kim/Hwang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the jig comprises a material that allows ultraviolet rays to pass therethrough.
Chiba teaches wherein the jig comprises a material that allows ultraviolet rays to pass therethrough [Chiba teaches, “In recent years, glass products, in particular quartz glass products made of quartz glass, are not limited to optical devices such as optical lenses, but take advantage of their durability and chemical stability to manufacture jigs for semiconductor manufacturing and liquid crystal display panels.” Wherein quartz allows pass through of ultraviolet rays].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the jig to comprise quarts to take advantage of their durability and chemical stability to manufacture jigs for display panels.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Hwang, & Choi as applied to claims 15-17 and further in view of Kishimoto & Kim_2021.
Regarding claim 19, Kim/Hwang/Choi teaches The method of claim 15.
Kim/Hwang/Choi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the forming of the light blocking pattern comprises:
forming a lower light blocking pattern contacting the display panel portion or the first circuit board;
forming an upper light blocking pattern disposed above the lower light blocking pattern and comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern.
However Kishimoto teaches wherein the forming of the light blocking pattern comprises:
forming a lower light blocking pattern [fig. 3B, protection film 352, para 65; wherein para 36-37 details protection layers may include a light blocking material.] contacting the display panel portion [fig. 3A/3B, display panel 200, para 57] or the first circuit board;
forming an upper light blocking pattern [fig. 3B, protection film 351, para 65; wherein para 36-37 details protection layers may include a light blocking material.] disposed above the lower light blocking pattern (fig. 3B, 352).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a lower light blocking pattern contacting the display panel and an upper light blocking pattern above the lower light blocking pattern to block stray light and ensure uniform brightness with minimal light leakage.
Kim/Hwang/Choi/Kishimoto fails to explicitly disclose the upper light blocking pattern comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern.
However Kim_2021 teaches the upper light blocking pattern [fig. 8A, upper light shielding layer LBL2, para 160] comprising a material different from that of the lower light blocking pattern [fig. 8A, lower light shielding layer LBL1, para 160].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper and lower light shielding layers to comprise different material to improve visual comfort and optical performance of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14, & 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, Kim/Kishimoto/Kim_2021 teaches The display device of claim 8.
Kim/Kishimoto/Kim_2021 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coating window comprises:
a first coating window directly disposed between the lower light blocking pattern and the upper light blocking pattern and having a first modulus value; and
a second coating window disposed directly on the upper light blocking pattern and the first coating window and having a second modulus value greater than the first modulus value.
Thereby claim 9 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, Kim/Lee/Lee_2017 teaches The display device of claim 13.
Kim/Lee/Lee_2017 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking pattern comprises:
a first light blocking pattern disposed between a side surface of the protective layer and the first circuit board;
a second light blocking pattern disposed between the first circuit board and the second circuit board; and
a third light blocking pattern disposed on the second circuit board and adjacent to an outside of the second circuit board.
Thereby claim 14 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, Kim/Hwang/Choi/Kishimoto/Kim_2021 teaches The method of claim 19.
Kim/Hwang/Choi/Kishimoto/Kim_2021 fails to explicitly disclose forming a second coating window on the lower light blocking pattern,
wherein second coating window has a lower modulus value than the first coating window.
Thereby claim 20 contains allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights