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
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0049287 A1~hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses (in at least figs. 3, 7G and 8) a method of manufacturing a display device (300; [0043]), the method comprising: positioning a display panel (330; [0045]) in an accommodating space of a stage; positioning a black matrix unit (316; [0044]) on an upper surface of a wall of the stage surrounding the accommodating space; and coating a window (310; [0044]) to cover the black matrix unit and the display panel (see at least fig. 3), wherein the black matrix unit (316) and the window (310) protrude beyond the display panel (see at least fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses (in at least fig. 3) cutting an edge of the black matrix unit (316) and an edge of the window (310), wherein after the cutting, the black matrix unit (316) and the window (310) protrude beyond the display panel (see fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by JOO et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0181389 A1~hereinafter “JOO”).
Regarding claim 1, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) a method of manufacturing a display device (1), the method comprising: positioning a display panel (300; [0042]) in an accommodating space of a stage (100; see at least fig. 2); positioning a black matrix unit (INK; [0042]; [0064]-[0065]) on an upper surface of a wall of the stage surrounding the accommodating space (100); and coating a window (600) to cover the black matrix unit (INK) and the display panel (300), wherein the black matrix unit (INK) and the window (600) protrude beyond the display panel (see at least figs. 2-8).
Regarding claim 2, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) cutting an edge of the black matrix unit (INK) and an edge of the window (600), wherein after the cutting, the black matrix unit (INK) and the window (600) protrude beyond the display panel (see at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) performing a surface treatment ([0019]-[0020]) on an inner surface of the wall with an anti-adhesion material ([0020]; i.e. the washing agent), wherein a height of the wall (100) is greater than a height of the display panel (300) in a thickness direction of the display panel (see at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) a portion of the black matrix unit (INK) overlaps the upper surface of the wall in a plan view (see at least fig. 2), and another portion of the black matrix unit (INK) overlaps the display panel in a plan view (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) the another portion of the black matrix unit (INK) is spaced apart from the display panel (300) in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 6, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) a portion of the window (600) is interposed between the another portion of the black matrix unit (INK) and the display panel (300).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO et al. (US. Pub: 2019/0181389 A1~hereinafter “JOO”) in view of Chang et al. (US. Pub: 2015/0049287 A1~hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 7, JOO discloses (in at least figs. 2-8) the black matrix unit (INK) but fails to disclose the black matrix includes a substrate and a black matrix pattern printed on the substrate.
Chang in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least figs. 3, 7G and 8) a black matrix (316) includes a substrate (312-315) and a black matrix pattern (316; [0051]) printed on the substrate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of JOO with black matrix substrate of Chang in order to provide suitable support to the black matrix.
Regarding claim 8, JOO as modified by Chang does not expressly disclose after the coating of the window, the window contacts an entire upper surface of the substrate, a portion of a lower surface of the black matrix pattern, and an entire upper surface of the display panel.
However, it is well-known in the art to form display device where after the coating of the window, the window contacts an entire upper surface of the substrate, a portion of a lower surface of the black matrix pattern, and an entire upper surface of the display panel as evident by Oh et al. (US. Pat: 10,658,615 B2~hereinafter “Oh”) of record at least fig. 8.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of JOO and Chang with the window arrangement teaching of OH, since it has been held that rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest performing a surface treatment on an upper surface of the wall with an anti-adhesion material, wherein a height of the wall and a height of the display panel are the same in a thickness direction of the display panel. Claims 10-13 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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 R. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights