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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0078] In some embodiments, the first substrate 110 may include an end EG at both ends in the second direction (Y-axis direction). The first substrate 110 may include an edge surface eg1 that overlaps the end EG, and that is on an opposite surface of one surface directed toward the second substrate 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 7 and 8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation ‘the first interval” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the first interval as a first spacing, gap or break.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paek et al. US 11,538,895.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paek et al. US 11,538,895
Regarding claim 1, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose a display device comprising:
a second substrate 200 corresponding to a main area FA, a pad area RFA, and a bending area BA between the main area FA and the pad area RFA;
a first substrate 110, 120 at the main area FA, 110 and at the pad area RFA, 120 and beneath the second substrate 200; and
a display element layer 310 at the main area FA and above the second substrate 200, wherein the first substrate 110, 120 comprises:
a first sub-substrate 110 overlapped with the main area FA, and comprising a first surface 110a adjacent the second substrate 200, a second surface 110c opposite to the first surface 110a, and a first side 110b directed toward the bending area BA; and
a second sub-substrate 120 spaced apart from the first sub-substrate 110 and overlapped with the pad area RFA,
wherein a first inclined angle (annotated above) formed by the second surface 110c and the first side 110b is an obtuse angle.
Regarding claim 2, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 1, wherein a second inclined angle (annotated above) formed by the first surface 110a and the first side 110b is an acute angle.
Regarding claim 3, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the first surface 110a and the second surface 110c extend from the first side 110b.
Regarding claim 4, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 3, wherein a thickness of the first substrate is about 200㎛ col. 5, lines 53-56.
Regarding claim 5, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 4, wherein the first substrate 110, 120 does not overlap the bending area BA col. 4, lines 40-54.
Regarding claim 6, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the second sub-substrate 120 further comprises a third surface 120a adjacent the second substrate 200, and a second side 120b directed toward the bending area BA, and wherein a second inclined angle (annotated above) formed by the third surface 120a and the second side 120b is an acute angle.
Regarding claim 7, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 6, wherein the first surface 110a and the third surface 120a are spaced apart from each other, and wherein inherently the second inclined angle (annotated above) increases as the first interval increases.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek et al. US 11,538,895 as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, Paek et al. in Figs. 1, col. 4, line 7- col. 5, line 21 and 6, col. 14, line 59-col. 15, line 64 disclose the display device of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the second inclined angle is about 42° or more and about 88° or less.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-16 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: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims,
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first sub-substrate comprises an edge surface extending from the second surface while overlapping an end of the first substrate, and wherein an inclined angle formed by the second surface and the edge surface is an obtuse angle.
Regarding claim 10, further comprising a second side connecting the first surface with the first side, wherein an undercut is formed between the second substrate and the second side.
Claims 11-16 directly or indirectly depend from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights