CTNF 18/737,825 CTNF 84076 DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/7/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 243 (see figs. 8,10, and 11) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 13 is 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. Specifically, the limitation “the light-blocking pattern part may be disposed on an entire surface of the second cover member” does not positively recite this limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation is that the light-blocking pattern part may or may not be disposed on the cover member. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-8, 11-18, 20, 22, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Ham (US 2023/0217707) . As to claim 1 , Ham teaches a display apparatus (figs. 1, 2 and 4A), comprising: a substrate (111) including a display area (AA) and a non-display area (NA) adjacent to the display area, the substrate being variable (fig. 1, [0044]); a plurality of connection wirings (181 and 182) disposed on the substrate (111, fig. 2, [0104] – [0106]); a cover window (146, 147, and 190) disposed at least over the plurality of connection wirings (181 and 182, fig. 4A, [0127]); and a light-blocking pattern (147) part included in the cover window (fig. 4A, [0014]). As to claim 3 , Ham further teaches a plurality of first plate parts (121) disposed on the display area (AA) of the substrate (111), the plurality of first plate parts (121) including a plurality of sub-pixels (SPX, [0075], figs. 1 and 2); and a plurality of second plate parts (123) disposed on the non-display area of the substrate (fig. 2, [0048]). As to claim 4 , Ham further teaches the plurality of first plate parts (121) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and configured to be relatively more rigid than the substrate ([0048] and [0058]), and the plurality of second plate parts (123) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and configured to be relatively more rigid than the substrate ([0048] and [0058]). As to claim 5 , Ham further teaches the cover window further includes: a first cover member (146); and a second cover member (190), wherein the light-blocking pattern part (147) is between the first cover member (146) and the second cover member (190, fig. 3) As to claim 6 , Ham further teaches the second cover member (190) covers the plurality of first plate parts (121), the plurality of second plate parts (123), and the plurality of connection wirings (181 and 182, [0127]). As to claim 7 , Ham further teaches the first cover member (146), the light-blocking pattern part (147), and the second cover member (190) are integrated with each other (fig. 4A, they are functioning as a unit even though they are three different layers, similar to what is shown in the instant application’s drawings). As to claim 8 , Ham further teaches the first cover member (126) and the second cover member (190) have different elastic modulus ([0101] and [0127]). As to claim 11 , Ham further teaches the first cover member (146) includes an elastomer ([0101]), the second cover member (190) includes an optically cleared adhesive or an optically cleared resin ([0127]), and the light-blocking pattern (147) part includes an opaque material ([0114]). As to claims 12 and 20 , Ham further teaches a plurality of light-emitting elements (170) respectively disposed at the plurality of sub-pixels (SPX) and spaced apart from each other ([0076]), and light-blocking pattern part (147) is disposed in a boundary area between adjacent ones of the plurality of sub-pixels and disposed on the second cover member (fig. 3, layer 147 surrounds the subpixel). As to claim 13 , Ham further teaches the light-blocking pattern part may be disposed on an entire surface of the second cover member (fig. 3, see 112 rejection above. It may or may not be. Since not positively claimed, the limitation is met. However, it is obvious that the light-blocking pattern would be over everything except the pixels). As to claims 14 and 28 , Ham further teaches the light-blocking pattern part (147) has an opening through the light-blocking pattern part (see fig. 3, where the LED 170 is located), the opening is a light emitting area where light emitted from a light-emitting element disposed in one of the plurality of sub-pixels is emitted, and the light-blocking pattern part is disposed on an entire surface of the second cover member excluding the opening (fig. 3). As to claim 15 , Ham further teaches the plurality of connection wirings include: a first connection wiring (181) extending in a second direction and configured to be electrically connected to adjacent ones of the plurality of first plate parts to each other and be electrically connected to adjacent ones of the plurality of second plate parts to each other (see figs. 1 and 2, [0104]), respectively; and a second connection wiring (182) extending in a first direction different from the second direction and configured to electrically connect to adjacent ones of the plurality of first plate parts to each other and electrically connect to the first plate part and the second plate part adjacent to each other (see figs. 1 and 2, [0104]). As to claim 16 , Ham further teaches the light-blocking pattern part (147) is disposed at least over an area corresponding to the first connection wiring (181) and the second connection wiring (182, fig. 4A, 147 is covering at least part of 181 and 182 (not shown)). As to claims 17 and 18 , Ham further teaches each of the plurality of connection wirings extends in a wave shape or a zigzag shape ([0051], fig. 2). As to claim 22 , Ham further teaches the light-blocking pattern part (147) covering a boundary area between adjacent ones of the plurality of sub-pixels (see fig. 3), the first connection wiring (181, at least partially, fig. 4A), and the second connection wiring is disposed on the first plate part and the second plate part (see fig. 1, the second connection wiring connects both the first plate and the second plate). As to claim 23 , Ham further teaches the light-blocking pattern part (146) is disposed to fill a space between adjacent ones of a plurality of light-emitting elements respectively disposed in the plurality of sub-pixels (fig. 30) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Hamagishi (US 2011/0242466) . As to claim 2 , Ham does not explicitly teach the light-blocking pattern part is disposed such that the plurality of connection wirings are not visible to a viewer even when a stretching operation is repeated on the display apparatus. However, Hamagishi teaches a light-blocking sheet (30,31) is over the active area and has holes for the LEDs (figs. 1A and 1B, [0030] – [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the light blocking part be over everything in the active area except for the LEDs (which includes over the connection wiring) so as to properly control the light emission. As to claim 27 , Ham further teaches the plurality of connection wirings comprise a connection wiring disposed between the first plate part and the second plate part adjacent to each other (fig. 1). Ham does not teach the light-blocking pattern part covers the connection wiring disposed between the first plate part and the second plate part adjacent to each other and overlaps a respective periphery of the first plate part and a respective periphery of the second plate part. However, Hamagishi teaches the sheet covers all of the area except for the LEDs (see plate 30, figs. 1A and 1B,). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a light-blocking layer covering everything in the active area except for the LEDs (which includes over the connection wiring) so as to properly control the light emission . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 10, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham . As to claims 9 and 10 , Ham doesn’t explicitly teach the first cover member has an elastic modulus which does not exceed a maximum of 5 MPa, and the second cover member has an elastic modulus of 1 MPa or less. However, adjusting the exact values would have been obvious so as to fabricate layers having sufficient stretching capabilities while still maintaining support capabilities. If that leads the ranges claimed, then that is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation. As to claim 19 , Ham does not explicitly teach the cover window further includes an optical functional film layer disposed on the first cover member. However, the use of an optical functional film, such as a lens or a color filter array, is very well-known and would have been obvious so as to improve the light extraction of the LED display. As to claim 24 , Ham does not explicitly teach the LED is a micro LED. However, micro LEDs are known in the art and would have been obvious so as to use an industrially tested and accepted device, since the Applicant has not shown that use of a micro LED is novel and its use would lead to unexpected results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of Gao (US 2025/0098500) . As to claim 25 and 26 , Ham teaches the use of black particles for the light-blocking layer (147, [0114]) but does not teach they are cross-linked with molecules of silicone. However, Gao teaches the use of black particles with silicone ([0094]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the materials of Gao so as to improve the light blocking. Although the surface vinyl groups are not taught, Applicant has not shown that this limitation results in a new and unexpected result. Thus, determining the proper number of vinyl groups would have been obvious so as to fabricate a layer having customizable properties. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 21 is 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 taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. In particular, the prior art fails to teach the light-blocking pattern part includes a first pattern part and a second pattern part, the first pattern part is disposed to overlap with the first connection wiring and the second connection wiring, and has a shape corresponding to that of each of the first connection wiring and the second connection wiring, the second pattern part is disposed in a boundary area between adjacent ones of the plurality of sub-pixels. The light-blocking pattern of the Ham reference is a PDL, thus it would not have been obvious to adjust its shape to match the wiring. 13-03 Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to: Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22313 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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. /KAREN KUSUMAKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 6/14/26 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 2 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 3 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 4 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 5 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 6 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 7 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 8 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 10 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 11 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/737,825 Page 12 Art Unit: 2897
Prosecution Insights