DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 7-01-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 2021/0250542 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (Fig. 13) comprising a display panel (130 of Fig. 13), a window module disposed on the display panel ([0066]), a coating member covering the side surface (190 of Fig. 13), and a lower substrate layer (110 of Fig. 13, or alternatively any of the numerous other lower layers of Fig. 13). Regarding the claimed first, second and third regions, any portions of the product of Lee could be regarded as corresponding to the claimed regions because the claims do not specify any limitations related to the “regions.”
The teachings of Lee differ from the present invention in that Lee does not teach that a side surface of the window is disposed more inwardly than the side surface of the display panel, nor does Lee teach that the coating member covers a side surface of the window module. The recited geometry, however, appears to be an arbitrary recitation of shape that cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of Lee because the claimed geometry has no apparent significance with respect to the function or performance of the product; see MPEP 2144.04 I and IV. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate geometry for the edge features of the product of Lee based on the sizes of the specific components being used and the desired appearance of the final product.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 11-12, any of the various sides and surfaces of the product of Lee may be regarded as corresponding to the claimed first, second, third, and fourth side surface. As Lee teaches that the edge sealing member is to be applied around the perimeter of the display panel, at least three of the side surfaces would necessarily be in contact with the edge sealing member. Although Lee does not explicitly teach that a region adjacent to the third surface is bent, Lee teaches that the product may be a bendable device ([0263]). In the case that the product is bendable, the bent portion may be regarded as corresponding to the region adjacent to the third side surface, as any of the side surfaces of the product of Lee can be regarded as being the “third side surface.” Additionally, any of the side surfaces of the product of Lee may be regarded as corresponding to the claimed first through fourth side surfaces, and each side surface of the product of Lee is spaced apart from its corresponding opposite side surface.
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, as discussed above, the recited geometry appears to be an arbitrary recitation of shape that cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of Lee because the claimed geometry has no apparent significance with respect to the function or performance of the product; see MPEP 2144.04 I and IV. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate geometry for the product of Lee based on the sizes of the specific components being used and the desired appearance of the final product.
Claims 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 2021/0250542 A1, as applied above, in view of Shiomi et al, US 2009/0127561 A1.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 13-14, Lee teaches the display device as discussed above. The teachings of Lee differ from the present invention in that although Lee teaches that the light-blocking side coating member may be a resin ([0147]), Lee do not teach that the resin is an acrylic or urethan resin, nor does Lee teach that the resin contains particles. Shiomi, however, teaches that such light shielding materials for display devices may comprise an acrylic or urethane resin and particles ([0077]-[0078], [0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an acrylic or urethane resin with particles as the resin of the coating member of Lee because Shiomi explicitly teaches an acrylic or urethane resin and particles to be appropriate for use as light-blocking resins in display devices.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 2021/0250542 A1, as applied above, in view of Kim, US 2018/0088375 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the display device as discussed above. The teachings of Lee differ from the present invention in that although Lee teaches a window module as discussed above, Lee does not teach that the window module may comprise a protection layer, a light-blocking pattern, and a functional layer. Kim, however, teaches that windows for such display devices may comprise a protection layer ([0065]), a light-blocking pattern layer ([0068]), and a functional layer ([0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a protection layer, a light-blocking pattern, and a functional layer in the window of the product of Lee, as Kim explicitly teaches that such display devices may comprise a protection layer, a light-blocking pattern, and a functional layer on the window module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights