DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
For Examiner’s Interview fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html).
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
Independent: 1 and 17.
Pending: 1-20.
Withdrawn: 11 and 15.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS(s) submitted on 2/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has/have considered by the examiner and made of record.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III claim 1-10,12-14 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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) 1-10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., US Patent 11101454 B2 (Jung’454); in view of Jung et al., KR20210052725A (Jung’725), foreign patent document cite no. 2 in IDS dated 2/23/2024.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Jung’454 discloses mother substrate (10, fig. 2A) for a display panel, the mother substrate (10, fig. 2A) comprising: display panels (100, fig. 2A) disposed on a substrate (10, fig. 2A); protective films (50, fig. 2A) disposed on the display panels (100, fig. 2A) and covering the display panels (100, fig. 2A), respectively;
Jung’454 is silent regarding: anti-peeling patterns disposed on the substrate (10, fig. 2A) and adjacent to the protective films (50, fig. 2A), respectively.
Jung’725 discloses anti-peeling patterns (30, fig. 12) disposed on the substrate (1, fig. 11) and adjacent to the protective films (20, fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns since this help protect the display panel from external damage.
Re: Claim 2, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 further discloses: wherein the protective films (50, fig. 2A) include a first protective film (top left CE region film, fig. 2A) and a second protective film (top middle CE region film, fig. 2A) adjacent to the first protective film (top left CE region film, fig. 2A).
Jung’454 is silent regarding: the anti-peeling patterns include a first anti-peeling pattern and a second anti-peeling pattern, the first anti-peeling pattern is adjacent to the first protective film (top left CE region film, fig. 2A) and is disposed between the first protective film (top left CE region film, fig. 2A) and the second protective film (top middle CE region film, fig. 2A), and the second anti-peeling pattern is adjacent to the second protective film (top middle CE region film, fig. 2A).
Jung’725 discloses in figure 11 and 12 the anti-peeling patterns (30) include a first anti-peeling pattern (left side L shape 30) and a second anti-peeling pattern (right side L shape 30), the first anti-peeling pattern (left side L shape 30) is adjacent to the first protective film (104) and is disposed between the first protective film (104) and the second protective film (20), and the second anti-peeling pattern (right side L shape 30) is adjacent to the second protective film (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns since this help protect the display panel from external damage.
Re: Claim 3, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends. Jung’725 further discloses in figure 11: a first distance (distance top of 30 to bottom of 104) between the first anti-peeling pattern (30) and a first protective film (104) is less than a half of a distance (distance bottom of 104 to top of 20) between the first protective film (104) and the second protective film (20).
Re: Claim 4, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 3 on which this claim depends. Jung’725 further discloses in figure 11: wherein the first distance (distance top of 30 to bottom of 104) is less than a second distance (distance bottom of 104 to top of 20) between the first anti-peeling pattern (30) and the second protective film (20).
Re: Claim 5, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 4 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: wherein the first distance is in a range of about 200 µm to 1000 µm, and the second distance is greater than about 1000 µm. However, thickness range it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the display device of Jung et al., as modified above the include distance is in a range of about 200 µm to 1000 µm, and the second distance is greater than about 1000 µm since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thicker thickness to achieve the predictable result of protecting the display device within the anti-peeling patterns and protective films.
Re: Claim 6, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: wherein a first height of each of the anti-peeling patterns is in a range of about 30% to about 100% of a second height of each of the protective films (50, fig. 2A).
Jung’725 discloses in figure 6, wherein a first height of each of the anti-peeling patterns (30) is in a range of about 30% to about 100% of a second height of each of the protective films (20).
However, thickness range it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the display device of Jung et al., as modified above the include thickness anti-peeling patterns is in a range of about 30% to about 100% of a second height of each of the protective films since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization the anti-peeling patterns of the display device thereby improve the high-density integration.
Re: Claim 7, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: wherein the first height is in a range of about 30 µm to 100 µm.
However, thickness range it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the display device of Jung et al., as modified above the include first height is in a range of about 30 µm to 100 µm since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization anti-peeling patterns about 30 µm to 100 µm such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization the anti-peeling patterns of the display device thereby improve the high-density integration.
Re: Claim 8, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: wherein a width of each of the anti-peeling patterns is in a range of about 3 mm to 10 mm.
However, thickness range it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the display device of Jung et al., as modified above the include first height is in a range of about 3 mm to 10 mm since modification would have only involved a mere change in working range which involves only routine skill in the art one would have been motivated to make such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization anti-peeling patterns about 3 mm to 10 mm such modification to make those layer to have a thinner thickness to achieve the predictable result of miniaturization the anti-peeling patterns of the display device thereby improve the high-density integration.
Re: Claim 9, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 further discloses: an acid-resistant film (column 11, lines 46-52) disposed on the substrate (10, fig. 2A) and covering the protective films (50, fig. 2A). Jung’454 is silent regarding: the anti-peeling patterns. Jung’725 discloses anti-peeling patterns (30, fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns since this help protect the display panel from external damage.
Re: Claim 10, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 further discloses: wherein the acid-resistant film (column 11, lines 46-52) includes: a base layer (52, fig. 3); and an adhesive layer (51, fig. 3) disposed under the base layer (52, fig. 3) and contacting the protective films (50, fig. 2A).
Jung’454 is silent regarding: the anti-peeling patterns, and wherein the adhesive layer (51, fig. 3) is not applied to an end of each of the protective films (50, fig. 2A), wherein the end of each of the protective films (50, fig. 2A) is an end thereof adjacent to a corresponding one of the anti-peeling patterns.
Jung’725 discloses anti-peeling patterns (30, fig. 12) disposed on the substrate (1, fig. 11) and adjacent to the protective films (20, fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns since this help protect the display panel from external damage.
Re: Claim 16, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: the anti-peeling patterns include a same material as the protective films.
Jung’725 discloses wherein the anti-peeling patterns (30 is made of organic material) include a same material as the Jung’454’s protective films (50, fig. 2A (also made of organic material such as PET).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns same material as protective material since organic material such as PET is good insulation low cost and thermal stability this can improve device process separation step.
Re: Independent Claim 17, Jung’454 discloses the method comprising: forming display panels (100, fig. 2A) on a preliminary substrate (10, fig. 2A); forming protective films (50, fig. 2A) covering the display panels (100, fig. 2A) on the preliminary substrate (10, fig. 2A)
Jung’454 is silent regarding: forming anti-peeling patterns adjacent to the protective films (50, fig. 2A), respectively, on the preliminary substrate (10, fig. 2A).
Jung’725 discloses forming anti-peeling patterns (30, fig. 4a-4c) adjacent to the protective films (20, fig. 4a-4c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns since this help protect the display panel from external damage.
Re: Claim 18, Jung’454 and Jung’725 discloses all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends. Jung’454 is silent regarding: the anti-peeling patterns include a same material as the protective films (50, fig. 2A) and are formed during a same process using a same material.
Jung’725 discloses wherein the anti-peeling patterns (30 is made of organic material) include a same material as the Jung’454’s protective films (50, fig. 2A (also made of organic material such as PET).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include anti-peeling patterns same material as protective material since organic material such as PET is good insulation low cost and thermal stability this can improve device process separation step.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
* (“Jeon et al., US PG pub. 20220381958 A1”) Discloses a protective film and a display apparatus including the same are disclosed. The display apparatus in the embodiments may include a protective film that is disposed on a display panel and includes a substrate and a light shielding layer being formed in the edge portion of the substrate, which corresponds to a non-display area of the display panel. The light shielding layer may include a first layer and a second layer on the first layer. The first layer may include at least two or more of first patterns that are spaced from each other and a plurality of second patterns that are disposed between at least two or more of the first patterns.
* (“Minamidate et al., US PG pub. 20180257978 A1”) discloses a print layer-attached plate including a plate having a first main surface and a second main surface, and a print layer provided on the first main surface, in which the first main surface at least partially includes a region formed of a recessed and projected layer having an arithmetic average surface roughness Ra of 4 nm or more and 1,000 nm or less, and the print layer is formed so as to cover at least a part of the region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12-14, 19 and 20 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.
Re: Claim 12, (and its dependent claim 13) the prior art of record do not disclose or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim: wherein the protective films are arranged along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate, the acid-resistant film is removed along a first diagonal direction between the first direction and the second direction, and the anti-peeling patterns are adjacent to the protective films in a second diagonal direction opposite to the first diagonal direction.
Re: Claim 14, the prior art of record do not disclose or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim: wherein the protective films are arranged along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate, the acid-resistant film is removed along a first diagonal direction and a third diagonal direction, wherein the first diagonal direction is between the first direction and the second direction, and the third diagonal direction is symmetrical to the first diagonal direction with the first direction as an axis of symmetry, and the anti-peeling patterns are adjacent to the protective films in a second diagonal direction and a fourth diagonal direction, wherein the second diagonal direction is opposite to the first diagonal direction, and the fourth diagonal direction is opposite to the third diagonal direction.
Re: Claim 19, (and its dependent claim 20) the prior art of record do not disclose or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim: adhering an acid-resistant film on the preliminary substrate to cover the protective films and the anti-peeling patterns; forming a substrate by etching the preliminary substrate; removing the acid-resistant film; and removing the anti-peeling patterns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZ CHIU whose telephone number is 571-272-8656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00AM to 5:00PM (EST).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached on 571-270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSZ K CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Tsz.Chiu@uspto.gov
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights