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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
The status of the claims is as follows: claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 18 and 29 are amended; claims 9-10, 19-26 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-8, 11-18 and 27-29 pending for examination.
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 1-8, 11-16 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 1, the newly amended phrase “closed loop shape” is indefinite as is unclear what is meant by the word “loop” with respect to the shape so of the through hole. The word “loop” is commonly accepted to mean “a curving or doubling of a line so as to form a closed or partly open curve within itself through which another line can be passed or into which a hood may be hooked” (see LOOP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). The specification does not use the term “loop” with respect to the shape of the through hole, nor does the specification provide a definition for the term within the context of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the first and second marks”. Claim 12 has been amended to depend from claim 1, and claim 1 does not recite or require a first mark or a second mark.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation reciting “the through hole produced by the laser irradiation device provides a miniaturized alignment mark that is precisely manufactured” is indefinite. It is unclear what structural features are required for “miniaturized alignment mark”. The word “miniaturized” is commonly accepted to mean “to design or construct in small size” (see MINIATURIZED Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). The word “miniaturized” is a relative term regarding the size of the alignment mark, and it is not clear what size alignment mark would meet the limitation as the specification has not provided a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for the scope of the term “miniaturized”.
Furthermore, the phrase “precisely manufactured” is indefinite as it is unclear what this phase means with respect to the structure of the claimed alignment mark. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “precisely manufactured” is with respect to the alignment mark.
Claims 2-8, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency from the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 10-2015-0061144A, cited on IDS, machine translation via EPO previously provided).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, Lee teaches a display device (10) comprising a touch panel (200; display panel), a cover substrate (230; window member) disposed on the touch panel (200; display panel) and an alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) (Figure 1, 2; [0001, 0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]). The alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) is comprised of a light blocking layer that includes a first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) disposed on the lower surface of the cover substrate (230; window member) and a second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) disposed on the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) (Figure 3; [0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]). The alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) further comprises a white layer (330; pattern layer) disposed on the second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), wherein the white layer (330; pattern layer) comprises an opening (OP; through hole) exposing the underlying second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), wherein the combination of the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer), second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), white layer (330; pattern layer) and opening (OP; through hole) forms an alignment mark (Figure 3-6; [0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]).
As shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Lee, the opening (OP; through hole) exposes a portion of the second black light (320; second light blocking layer) and forms a closed loop shape in plan view, as shown by the alignment mark in Figures 4 (square/rectangular shape) (Figure 3-6; [0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) and second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) are comprised of a black matrix material such as carbon black ([0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the white layer (330; pattern layer) is comprised of an ink mixed with white pigment ([0024]).
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches an input device comprising a display device (10) comprising a touch panel (200; display panel), a cover substrate (230; window member) disposed on the touch panel (200; display panel) and an alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) (Figure 1, 2; [0001-0002, 0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]). The alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) is comprised of a light blocking layer that includes a first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) disposed on the lower surface of the cover substrate (230; window member) and a second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) disposed on the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) (Figure 3; [0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]). The alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) further comprises a white layer (330; pattern layer) disposed on the second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), wherein the white layer (330; pattern layer) comprises an opening (OP; through hole) exposing the underlying second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), wherein the combination of the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer), second black layer (320; second light blocking layer), white layer (330; pattern layer) and opening (OP; through hole) forms an alignment mark (Figure 3-6; [0006-0009, 0011, 0015-0027]).
The limitation reciting “is produced by laser irradiation device” is directed to a method of using and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of making the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, Lee teaches all the structural features of an opening (OP; through hole) as stated in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 27 above.
The limitation reciting “the through hole produced by the laser irradiation device provides a miniaturized alignment mark that is precisely manufactured” is considered functional language related to the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The display device comprising an alignment mark with an opening (OP; through hole) as taught by Lee is capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Furthermore, the alignment mark disclosed with the display device of Lee is to address alignment process defects between a liquid crystal panel and a touch panel to improve process efficiency ([0001]). Lee addresses these issues by forming a difference in brightness and step so that it can be easily aligned with a vision device thus reducing defects in the alignment process of the liquid crystal panel and the tough panel (i.e. precisely manufactured) ([0024-0026]).
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 4, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2015-0061144A, cited on IDS, machine translation via EPO previously provided).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches that the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) and second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) can completely or partially overlap one another ([0023]). While the reference does not expressly teach that the width of the second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) is smaller than the width of the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer), such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired visual appearance of the resultant alignment mark.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches as shown at least by Figure 3, that the width of the white layer (330; pattern layer) is less than the width of the second black layer (320; second light blocking layer).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above and the claim is indefinite for the reasons presented above.
As shown by Figure 4, Lee further comprises a first mark formed by the opening (OP; through hole) in a rectangular shape exposing the second black layer (320; second light blocking layer) and a second mark formed by the outer edge of the white layer (330; pattern layer) in a rectangular shape exposing the first black layer (310; first light blocking layer) ([0023-0030]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2015-0061144A, cited on IDS, machine translation via EPO previously provided) in view of Martin (US 2013/0127784; previously cited).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, however, the reference does not expressly teach a cover layer including silicon dioxide disposed over the white layer (330; pattern layer) of the alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer).
Martin teaches a display device comprising a display, an illumination device and a touch sensor, wherein the device includes metallic layers and a silicon dioxide cover layer to protect underlying layers from corrosion ([0005-0008, 0092]).
As both Lee and Martin are in the display device field, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the silicon dioxide cover layer taught by Martin over the white layer (330; pattern layer) of the alignment mark (AK, SAK; alignment mark layer) taught by Lee to protect the underlying layers from corrosion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application of the embodiment of claim 11 in view of claim and claim 28 in view of claim 27.
Regarding claim 11, in combination with the features of claim 1, claim 11 further requires that the alignment mark layer comprises an alignment mark including a first mark that corresponds to the portion of the light blocking layer exposed by the through hole in the plan view and a second mark that comprises a portion of the pattern layer delineated by an surrounded by the through hole in the plan view (see Figures 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of application). Lee does not teach or suggest a configuration for the alignment mark as required by claim 11 in combination with claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, in combination with the features of claim 27, claim 28 requires that the through hole have a closed shape in a plan view that divides a first pattern of the pattern layer surrounded by the through hole in the plan view from a second portion of the pattern layer that surrounds the through hole in plan view, wherein the exposed portion of the light blocking layer corresponds to a first alignment mark and the first portion of the pattern layer corresponds to a second alignment mark. Lee does not teach or suggest a configuration for the alignment mark as required by claim 28 in combination with claim 27.
Claims 17 and 18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application of the embodiment of claims 17 and 18.
Regarding independent claim 17, the limitation requiring the window member to comprise a body portion wherein the display panel is disposed thereon and a flange portion disposed on an outer edge of the body portion, wherein the flange portion has a smaller thickness in a thickness direction of the display device than the body portion is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. Furthermore, the limitation of claim 18 requiring the alignment mark to be disposed on the lower surface of the flange portion is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. The Applicant argues on page 12 of the response filed 06/29/2026 that having a flange portion with reduced thickness allows for insertion into the housing or strap as shown in Figure 1 of the instant application, wherein by forming the body portion and the flange portion as a single unified structure, durability is enhanced, and design is streamlined ([0075]). Lee does not teach or suggest such a feature, nor is there any suggestion to modify the reference to meet the structural feature of the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, in light of the amendments to the claims in the response filed 06/29/2026, the claim remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for the reasons expressed above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 8, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is overcome by the Applicants arguments and amendments in the response filed 06/29/2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims1-8, 12-16, 27 and 29 filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Applicant argues on page 10 that Lee does not teach the opening (OP) is a “closed loop shape” as presently recited by the claims. This argument is not persuasive.
The phrase “closed loop shape” is considered indefinite for the reasons stated above, as it is not clear what a “closed loop shape” is within the scope of the claimed invention of the instant application.
The opening (OP; through hole) taught in the alignment mark of Lee is closed shape that is in the form of a square as shown in Figure 4, shown below, that is fully surrounded by the white layer. The underlying light blocking layer (2310, 320) is visible through the opening (OP).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The structure of Lee above is similar to Figure 14 of the instant application, which illustrates an embodiment of the alignment mark wherein a through hole (720b) is formed in the pattern layer (720) such that the underlying light blocking layer (712) is visible therethrough.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As both Lee and the instant application teach similar structures as shown in the figures reproduced above, the limitation “closed loop shape” is met by the structure of Lee.
With respect to independent claim 27, the Applicant argues on pages 13 and 14 that the phrase “the through hole is produced by a laser irradiation device” allows for the production of a miniaturized alignment mark having precise patterning resulting in more precise alignment. Therefore, the claimed laser formation of the alignment mark results in distinct structural characteristics not found in Lee.
This argument is not persuasive as the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim. There does not appear to be any limitation directed to the features that could arise from the laser irradiation process
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to independent claim 17 and dependent claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 17 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights