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 .
Specification
The 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2024 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) #1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su".
Su shows, with respect to claim #1, display apparatus comprising: a cover window including a base portion (fig. #7, item 6) (paragraph 0066), an edge portion protruding (fig. #7, item 61) from a virtual plane on which the base portion is located at an edge of the base portion (paragraph 0068), and an adhesive layer (fig. #7, item 63) (paragraph 0073) coupling the base portion to the edge portion (fig. #7, item 92) (paragraph 0073); and a display panel disposed under the base portion (paragraph 0068), wherein the base portion includes a main portion and a protrusion (fig. #7, item 61) protruding towards the edge portion from the main portion (paragraph 0068), and the edge portion includes a lateral wall (fig. #7, item 93) (paragraph 0078) portion and a binding portion (fig. #7, item 62) protruding towards the base portion from the lateral wall portion (paragraph 0078).
Su shows, with respect to claim #5, display apparatus comprising; wherein the binding portion (Below, fig. #Ex1, item BA1) is seated on the protrusion (paragraph 0079-0080).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angular Edge; AE1)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Outer Area thickness; OA1)][AltContent: textbox (Binding Area; BA1)][AltContent: textbox (Ex1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
796
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Su shows, with respect to claim #6, display apparatus comprising wherein the protrusion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item 61) is disposed between the binding portion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item BA1) and a portion of the display panel(fig. #2, item 14, 10 and 16) (paragraph 0045, 0079-0080).
Su shows, with respect to claim #8, display apparatus comprising wherein a thickness of the protrusion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item 61) is less than a thickness of the main portion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item OA1) (paragraph 0045, 0079-0080).
Su shows, with respect to claim #10, display apparatus comprising wherein the base portion has a circular shape(fig. #11) in a plan view (paragraph 0087, 0095), and the edge (Above, fig. #Ex1, item AE1) portion has an annular shape in a plan view (paragraph 0087, 0095).
Su shows, with respect to claim #11, display apparatus comprising a cover window including a base portion (fig. #7, item 6) (paragraph 0066), an edge portion protruding (fig. #7, item 61) from a virtual plane on which the base portion is located at an edge of the base portion (paragraph 0068), and an adhesive layer (fig. #7, item 63) (paragraph 0073) coupling the base portion to the edge portion (fig. #7, item 92) (paragraph 0073); a display panel disposed under the base portion (paragraph 0068); and a light-blocking layer (fig. #7, item 8) covering at least a portion of the edge portion (paragraph 0069), wherein the base portion includes a main portion and a protrusion (fig. #7, item 61) protruding towards the edge portion from the main portion (paragraph 0068), and the edge portion includes a lateral wall portion (fig. #7, item 93) (paragraph 0078) and a binding portion (fig. #7, item 62) protruding towards the base portion from the lateral wall portion (paragraph 0078).
Su shows, with respect to claim #15, display apparatus comprising; wherein the binding portion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item BA1) is seated on the protrusion (paragraph 0079-0080).
Su shows, with respect to claim #16, display apparatus comprising wherein the protrusion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item 61) is disposed between the binding portion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item BA1) and a portion of the display panel(fig. #2, item 14, 10 and 16) (paragraph 0045, 0079-0080).
Su shows, with respect to claim #18, display apparatus comprising wherein a thickness of the protrusion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item 61) is less than a thickness of the main portion (Above, fig. #Ex1, item OA1) (paragraph 0045, 0079-0080).
Su shows, with respect to claim #20, display apparatus comprising wherein the base portion has a circular shape(fig. #11) in a plan view (paragraph 0087, 0095), and the edge (Above, fig. #Ex1, item AE1) portion has an annular shape in a plan view (paragraph 0087, 0095).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) #7, 9, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su".
Su shows, with respect to claim #7, display apparatus comprising: wherein a length of the protrusion (fig. #7, item 62) is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm (paragraph 0083).
The Examiner notes that Su does not explicitly state the value/range for the protrusion as shown in the presently presented claim #7. However, Su states (paragraph 0083) that depth of the notch, “should be as small as possible under the condition that the position of the third supporting section 93 in the second direction can be limited”. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature “range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. Also, the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm in order to be considered “about” 0.5 mm to “about” 1.0 mm. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Su shows, with respect to claim #9, display apparatus comprising: wherein the thickness of the protrusion (fig. #7, item 62) is in a range of about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm (paragraph 0083).
The Examiner notes that Su does not explicitly state the value/range for the protrusion as shown in the presently presented claim #9. However, Su states (paragraph 0083) that depth of the notch, “should be as small as possible under the condition that the position of the third supporting section 93 in the second direction can be limited”. The purpose of the prospective this decision yields the following as shown by Su; “ the advantage of this arrangement is that, on the one hand, such arrangement can reduce the impact of the second notch 62 on the strength of the cover plate 6, and on the other hand, such arrangement can prevent the second notch 62 from extending to the display region of the display panel (which will affect the display effect of the display panel). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature “about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. Also, the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm in order to be considered “about” 0.1 mm to “about” 0.25 mm. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Su shows, with respect to claim #17, display apparatus comprising: wherein a length of the protrusion (fig. #7, item 62) is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm (paragraph 0083).
The Examiner notes that Su does not explicitly state the value/range for the protrusion as shown in the presently presented claim #17. However, Su states (paragraph 0083) that depth of the notch, “should be as small as possible under the condition that the position of the third supporting section 93 in the second direction can be limited”. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature “range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. Also, the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm in order to be considered “about” 0.5 mm to “about” 1.0 mm. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 0.5 mm to about 1.0 mm) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Su shows, with respect to claim #19, display apparatus comprising: wherein the thickness of the protrusion (fig. #7, item 62) is in a range of about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm (paragraph 0083).
The Examiner notes that Su does not explicitly state the value/range for the protrusion as shown in the presently presented claim #19. However, Su states (paragraph 0083) that depth of the notch, “should be as small as possible under the condition that the position of the third supporting section 93 in the second direction can be limited”. The purpose of the prospective this decision yields the following as shown by Su; “ the advantage of this arrangement is that, on the one hand, such arrangement can reduce the impact of the second notch 62 on the strength of the cover plate 6, and on the other hand, such arrangement can prevent the second notch 62 from extending to the display region of the display panel (which will affect the display effect of the display panel). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature “about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. Also, the term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm in order to be considered “about” 0.1 mm to “about” 0.25 mm. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 0.1 mm to about 0.25 mm) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
//
Claim #2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Suehiro et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 2011/0104834), hereinafter referred to as "Suehiro".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #2, an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire.
Suehiro teaches, with respect to claim #2, an apparatus wherein the base portion (fig. #7, item #6f) includes sapphire (paragraph 0158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Suehiro, which teaches an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire, to incorporate a structural condition that would be scratch resistant and protect the underline layers, as taught by Suehiro.
///
Claim #12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above and in view of Suehiro et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 2011/0104834), hereinafter referred to as "Suehiro".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #12, an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire.
Suehiro teaches, with respect to claim #12, an apparatus wherein the base portion (fig. #7, item #6f) includes sapphire (paragraph 0158).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #12, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Suehiro, which teaches an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire, to incorporate a structural condition that would be scratch resistant and protect the underline layers, as taught by Suehiro.
////
Claim #3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Chan et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0155748), hereinafter referred to as "Chan".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #3, an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire.
Chan teaches, with respect to claim #3, an apparatus wherein the edge portion (fig. #11, Item 208) includes at least one of black ceramic and black sapphire (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Chan, which teaches an apparatus wherein the base portion includes sapphire, to incorporate a structural condition that would allow lighting paths to be cleaner, as taught by Chan.
/////
Claim #4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Hill et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 12,712,955), hereinafter referred to as "Hill".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #4, an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer includes a light-blocking material.
Hill teaches, with respect to claim #4, an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer (fig. #11b, Item 1155) includes a light-blocking material (column #73, line 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Hill, which teaches an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer includes a light-blocking material, to incorporate a structural condition that would prevent any light from producing an interference spectrum with project light, as taught by Hill.
///////
Claim #13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above and in view of Avser et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0328351), hereinafter referred to as "Avser".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #13, an apparatus wherein the edge portion includes crystallized glass.
Avser teaches, with respect to claim #13, an apparatus wherein the edge portion includes crystallized glass (paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #13, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Avser, which teaches an apparatus wherein the edge portion includes crystallized glass, to incorporate a structural condition that would protect the display cover, as taught by Avser.
///////
Claim #14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0306324), hereinafter referred to as "Su" as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above and in view of Hill et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 12,712,955), hereinafter referred to as "Hill".
Su substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above.
Su fails to show, with respect to claim #14, an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer includes a light-blocking material.
Hill teaches, with respect to claim 14, an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer (fig. #11b, Item 1155) includes a light-blocking material (column #73, line 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with respect to claim #14, to modified the invention of Su as modified by the invention of Hill, which teaches an apparatus wherein the adhesive layer includes a light-blocking material, to incorporate a structural condition that would prevent any light from producing an interference spectrum with project light, as taught by Hill.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
08/18/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights