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 with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the alternative laser printing process cited by the Examiner falls outside the claimed method’s scope and cannot support the finding that the claimed method produces a materially different product”. This is not found persuasive because the main goal of the alternative is to show that the same product can be made by using a different method and not the other way around. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 3, 5-9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lee (US. Pub: 2022/0369486 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) a display device comprising: a display panel (DP; [0085]) having different first and second areas on one surface (see fig. 4); and a coating layer (RM, PCL) on the one surface of the display panel (DP), the coating layer (RM, PCL) comprising a light blocking cushion portion in the first area (AT1; i.e. the RM portion; [0112]-[0114]), and a first support portion in the second area (i.e. AT2; i.e. other RM portion) located on one side of the first area to support the display panel (see at least fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the coating layer further comprises a second support portion (PCL; [0106]) on the light blocking cushion portion (AT1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) in a plane parallel to the one surface of the display panel (DP), the coating layer has a round shape at one corner area (best seen in at least fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11; [0112]-[0115]) the light blocking cushion portion comprises a first material mixed with an elastic material that comprises at least one of silicon, urethane, epoxy acrylate, or polyethylene, and a light blocking material comprising at least one of graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (RGO), aluminum, carbon black (CB), or copper (Cu).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11; [0144]-[0145]) the first support portion comprises a second material comprising at least one of silicon, urethane, epoxy acrylate, or polyethylene.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the display panel comprises a bending area adjacent to the first area on the one surface (best seen in at least fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the first area (AT1) is located on one side of the bending area in a first direction, and the second area is located on an other side of the bending area in the first direction (best seen in at least fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) a display device comprising: a display panel (DP); and a coating layer (RM) on one side of the display panel, the coating layer comprising a light blocking cushion portion (AT1, AT2; [0112]-[0115]) on the one side of the display panel, and a support portion (PCL; [0106]) on the light blocking cushion portion to support the display panel.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11; [0112]-[0115]) the light blocking cushion portion comprises a first material mixed with an elastic material that comprises at least one of silicon, urethane, epoxy acrylate, or polyethylene, and a light blocking material comprising at least one of graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (RGO), aluminum, carbon black (CB), or copper (Cu).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the support portion (PCL) comprises a second material comprising at least one of silicon, urethane, epoxy acrylate, or polyethylene ([0143]-[0146]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US. Pub: 2022/0369486 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee does not expressly disclose the light blocking cushion portion has a different thickness from the first support portion and the coating layer has a shape where the thickness gradually decreases from one end to the outside.
However, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) a light blocking cushion portion (RM at AT1) and a first support portion (RM at AT2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through design choice. Applicant has not disclosed the recited thickness is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that process would possess utility using the thickness of Lee. Indeed, it has been held that mere thickness 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the display panel comprises a substrate (SF, SLM) exposed on the one surface.
Lee does not expressly disclose the material of the substrate is glass or polyimide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the invention to consider using glass or polyimide to form the substrate of Lee, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 4-11) the substrate (SF, SLM) comprises: a through portion in which the bending area is etched (best seen in at least fig. 7), a first substrate (SF) on one side of the through portion in a first direction, and a second substrate (SLM) located on an other side of the through portion in the first direction.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Park et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0068165 A1~hereinafter “Park”) and Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2023/0127915 A1~ hereinafter “Lee”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights