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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 3 and 11 are currently amended; claims 2 and 13 are canceled; and claims 4-10, 12 and 14-20 are original. The amendment dated August 5, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Koo does not teach or suggest “an intersection point” because Koo appears to show the two inclined surfaces as each separately intersecting a separate respective portion of the third cut surface CP3, and fails to teach an intersection point, where the surfaces intersect (Remarks, Pages 8-11).
Fig. 20 of Koo includes Figs. 20A-E, in which Koo describes various intersection points in an edge area. Fig. 20B is a typographical error; Fig. 20B should be Fig. 20D.
<Fig. 20 of Koo, teaching “an intersection point”>
PNG
media_image1.png
84
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the finality of the office action, the examiner considers the rejection relies on the same reference but merely corrects an obvious typographical error in the figure citation from the same Figure 20, thereby there is no new ground.
Regarding the interpretation of “an intersection point” in claim 1, the examiner further notes the applicant has been used the term “a point” to indicate points, i.e., “a point” in claim 1 is a line consisting points according to the Remarks. The rejection set forth below cites Figure 20D of Koo as teaching “an intersection point”.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 20200013846), of record, in view of Koo (KR 102345239 B1), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a display device (Fig. 1; Para. [0020]) comprising:
a base substrate (110; Para. [0042]) divided into a display area (AA in Fig. 1D; Para. [0044]) and at least one edge area (the bezel area including NA, 170 and 180; Para. [0068] “the bezel area includes the non-active area NA of the first substrate 110, the side lines 170, and the insulating layer 180”) adjacent to the display area, the base substrate including an upper surface (102), a rear surface (104) facing the upper surface, a first inclined surface (the upper inclined surface of 106) forming a first inclined angle with the upper surface (see Fig. 1C), and a second inclined surface (the lower inclined surface of 106) forming a second inclined angle with the rear surface (see Fig. 1C); and
a display panel (120; Para. [0046] “The display unit 120 displays an image. In one embodiment, an organic light emitting element and a circuit unit for driving the organic light emitting element are included in the display unit 120”) disposed on the upper surface of the base substrate,
wherein the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface are defined in the at least one edge area (see Fig. 1C).
Kwon does not explicitly disclose an intersection point, where the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface intersect, is defined on the base substrate.
However, Koo teaches various edge area designs (Fig. 20) including an intersection point (a line in Fig. 20D), where a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface intersect (Fig. 20D), is defined on a base substrate (glass G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inclined surfaces as disclosed by Kwon with the teachings of Koo, to have an intersection point, where the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface intersect, is defined on the base substrate, for the purpose of providing a glass substrate and fitting an electronic product (Koo: Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Kwon does not explicitly disclose the intersection point is located between a first plane extending in a direction parallel to the upper surface and a second plane extending in a direction parallel to the rear surface.
However, Koo teaches an intersection point is located between a first plane extending in a direction parallel to the upper surface and a second plane extending in a direction parallel to the rear surface (Fig. 20D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inclined surfaces as disclosed by Kwon with the teachings of Koo, to the intersection point is located between a first plane extending in a direction parallel to the upper surface and a second plane extending in a direction parallel to the rear surface, for the purpose of providing a glass substrate and fitting an electronic product (Koo: Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Kwon does not explicitly disclose the intersection point is located on a virtual horizontal line that bisects a thickness of the base substrate.
However, Koo teaches an intersection point is located on a virtual horizontal line that bisects a thickness of substrates (Fig. 20D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inclined surfaces as disclosed by Kwon with the teachings of Koo, wherein the intersection point is located on a virtual horizontal line that bisects a thickness of the base substrate, for the purpose of providing a glass substrate and fitting an electronic product (Koo: Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Kwon does not explicitly disclose a shortest distance from the first plane to the intersection point is substantially equal to a shortest distance from the second plane to the intersection point.
However, Koo teaches a shortest distance from the first plane to the intersection point is substantially equal to a shortest distance from the second plane to the intersection point (see Fig. 20B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inclined surfaces as disclosed by Kwon with the teachings of Koo, wherein a shortest distance from the first plane to the intersection point is substantially equal to a shortest distance from the second plane to the intersection point, for the purpose of having a convex surface on an edge portion to enhance strength, for the purpose of providing a glass substrate and fitting an electronic product (Koo: Para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Kwon further discloses wherein the first inclined angle is substantially equal to the second inclined angle (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Kwon further discloses wherein the at least one edge area is adjacent to an outside of the display area (see Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and Kwon further discloses wherein: the upper surface includes:
four sides that overlap the outside of the display area (see Fig. 1D where the edge area is formed overlapping the outside of DA); and
at least one corner area formed by two adjacent sides included among the four sides and intersecting with each other (see Fig. 1D), and
the first inclined surface extends from at least one of the four sides (see Figs. 1C-1D).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and Kwon further discloses wherein the base substrate further includes a pad area (the area comprising PAD1, PAD2; Para. [0054]) configured to transmit electrical signals to the display area (see Paras. [0051], [0054]), and
wherein the first inclined surface extends from a side included among the four sides and located adjacent to the pad area (see Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon as modified by Koo discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and Kwon further discloses wherein the at least one edge area overlaps the at least one corner area (Figs. 1C-1D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, Kwon discloses a method of manufacturing a display device (Fig. 1; Paras. [0020], [0059]), the method comprising:
forming a substrate (110; Para. [0042]) including an upper surface (102) and the rear surface (104) facing the upper surface;
forming a first inclined surface (the upper inclined surface of 106);
forming a second inclined surface (the lower inclined surface of 106); and
forming a base substrate (110 including the upper and lower inclined surface of 106) including the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface.
Kwon does not explicitly disclose forming at least one first hole in a first irradiation direction on a rear surface of a substrate;
forming at least one second hole in a second irradiation direction different from the first irradiation direction on the rear surface;
filling the at least one first hole and the at least one second hole with an etchant;
forming a first inclined surface along the at least one first hole; and
forming a second inclined surface along the at least one second hole.
However, the prior art of Moon (US 20170029957), of record, further teaches a known method of forming an inclined surface by using a laser and an etchant (Figs. 1A-1D; Para. [0014]) comprises: forming at least one first hole in a first irradiation direction on a surface of a substrate (Fig. 1B; 110a formed on the base material M in an irradiation direction using a laser beam; Para. [0029]);
filling the at least one first hole with an etchant (Fig. 1C; Para. [0032]); and
forming a first inclined surface along the at least one first hole (Fig. 1D; see the inclined surface formed on 110; Para. [0029]).
Because Kwon suggests a laser irradiation (Para. [0059]) and providing two inclined surfaces (Fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Kwon with the teachings of Moon, for forming at least one first hole in a first irradiation direction on a rear surface of a substrate; forming at least one second hole in a second irradiation direction different from the first irradiation direction on the rear surface; filling the at least one first hole and the at least one second hole with an etchant; forming the first inclined surface along the at least one first hole; and forming the second inclined surface along the at least one second hole, for the purpose of forming inclined surfaces using a known fabrication method (Moon: Paras. [0027]-[0032]).
However, Kwon and Moon fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specifications, “a length of the at least one first hole in the first irradiation direction is longer than a length of the at least one second hole in the second irradiation direction”. The examiner further considered Lee et al. (US 20220005914, hereinafter “Lee”), Gupta et al. (US 20170199405, hereinafter “Gupta”) and Chun (US 20170107605). For example, Lee teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, using a laser (L; Para. [0086]) and an etchant (AEC; Para. [0080]) to control the length of at least one hole (Fig. 6), but fails explicitly disclose a length of the at least one first hole in the first irradiation direction is longer than a length of the at least one second hole in the second irradiation direction. The prior art of Kwon, Moon, Koo, Lee, Gupta and Chun, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 11.
Dependent claims 12 and 14-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights