DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 25 August 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 25 August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of the Remarks, filed 25 August 2026, with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 28 May 2026 has been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (US 20200053874 A1), hereinafter referred to as Eom et al., in view of Jiang (US 20190036075 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jiang, in further view of Wang et al. (US 20220199704 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Eom et al. teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate (113) provided with a display area (111) including a plurality of pixels, and an end portion region including a connection portion;
a flexible wiring substrate (103) including wiring lines (130b) and a flexible base (131) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 29: the flexible printed circuit board 103 had circuit pattern 103b and base film 131); and
a drive IC chip (135) provided on the flexible wiring substrate (103) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 28 and 29: the integrated circuit chip 135, including a drive circuit, is mounted on the flexible circuit board 103), and
the flexible wiring substrate (103) is bent in a bend region (see Fig. 1),
the drive IC chip (135) opposes the display area (101) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 28: integrated circuit chip 135 including a drive circuit mounted on the flexible circuit board 103 at the rear side of the display panel 101),
Eom et al. does not teach a protective member extending from an end portion of the substrate and overlapping the wiring lines of the flexible wiring substrate beneath the flexible substrate. Jiang does teach a protective member (210) extending from an end portion of the substrate and overlapping the wiring lines (206) of the flexible wiring substrate (205) beneath the flexible substrate (Jiang Fig. 3 and paragraph 51: protective layer 210 is formed on an upper surface of the wiring layer 206, which is formed on the flexible substrate 205 and, when the substrate is bent as shown in Fig. 3, protective layer 210 falls beneath the wiring layer 206 in a plan view).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jiang Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a protective layer as taught by Jiang on the wiring lines of the flexible substrate of Eom et al. because the protective layer of Jiang limits breaks or defects in the flexible substrate and wiring layer that may appear during bending (see Jiang paragraph 4).
Eom et al. in view of Jiang does not teach that the elastic modulus of the protective member is 10 MPa or more and 20 MPa or less. Wang et al. does teach that the elastic modulus of the protective member is 10 MPa or more and 20 MPa or less (Wang et al. paragraph 47: the elastic modulus of the protective layers is 10KPa to 20MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the protective layer of Eom et al. in view of Jiang from the elastic materials Wang et al. because the softness of the protective layers of Wang et al. means they can be bent with little force, thus reducing the potential for cracks or damage during bending. (Wang et al. paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 2, Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the bend area includes a flat region (103a) and a region having curvature (103b) (see Eom et al. Fig. 1 and paragraph 31: the portion of the flexible circuit board 103 that overlaps with the circuit 103a is directly mounted on the flat surface of film 111, resulting in a flat region), and
the protective member (Jiang 210) overlaps the area having curvature (see Jiang Fig. 3 and paragraph 51: the protective layer 210 overlaps the flexible substrate 205 in an area where it is bent).
Regarding claim 4, Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein a polarizer (117) is provided on the substrate (113) (Eom et al. Fig. 1 and paragraph 25: the display panel may be provided with a polarizing film 117).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al., in further view of Ohira (KR 20070078722 A), hereinafter referred to as Ohira.
Regarding claim 3, Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein an adhesive is provided between the drive IC chip (135) and the display area (101). Eom et al. does not teach that the adhesive is a double-sided tape having cushioning properties.
Ohira does teach that the adhesive is a double-sided tape (31) having cushioning properties (Ohira Fig. 9 and page 3, first paragraph: double-sided tape 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive of Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. from a double-sided tape as taught by Ohira because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al., in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20170299965 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hashimoto et al.
Regarding claim 5, Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, but does not teach that a heat-resistant resin is provided to cover the wiring lines of the flexible wiring substrate.
Hashimoto does teach that the protective member may be a heat-resistant resin provided to cover the wiring lines of the flexible wiring substrate (Hashimoto et al. paragraph 182: the heat-resistant resin film produced from the resin composition according to the present invention can be used suitably as an insulating film or a protective film for wiring lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the protective member of Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. from a heat-resistant resin as taught by Hashimoto et al. because the heat-resistant resin of Hashimoto et al. reduces deteriorations or malfunctions of the display device (Hashimoto et al. paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al., in further view of Lee et al. (US 20170086296 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee et al.
Regarding claim 6, Eom et al. in view of Jiang and Wang et al. teaches the display device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the wiring lines and the connection portion of the flexible wiring substrate are electrically connected to each other by an anisotropic conductive film.
Lee et al. does teach that the wiring lines and the connection portion of the flexible wiring substrate are electrically connected to each other by an anisotropic conductive film (Lee et al. paragraphs 88 and 99: flexible circuit substrate 400 may be attached onto the first display substrate 110 through an anisotropic conductive film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the flexible wiring substrate and the connection portion by an anisotropic conductive film because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuta et al. (US 20050024553 A1)
Ko et al. (US 20060152662 A1)
Park et al. (US 20090213292 A1)
Tokonuga (US 20130016303 A1)
Jung et al. (US 10080281 B2)
Park et al. (US 20180307369 A1)
Lee et al. (US 20250098456 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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.
/JOHN B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights