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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20100124914 A and Lee hereinafter, Translation submitted) in view of Kim et al (US Patent No. 12474741 B2 and Kim hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses (figs. 1-6) a display device comprising: a display panel (30); a cover glass (16) facing the display panel and having an outer edge, the cover glass defining a groove (12) therein which extends along the outer edge; a light blocking layer (14) at the outer edge of the cover glass; and an adhesive layer (20) which comprises an optically clear resin (transparent) and combines the display panel and the cover glass to each other, wherein a portion of the adhesive layer is between the display panel and the cover glass, at the groove in the cover glass (fig.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking layer is between the portion of the adhesive layer and the cover glass. However, Kim teaches (figs. 1-8) wherein the light blocking layer (110) is between the portion of the adhesive layer (250) and the cover glass (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine light blocking layer is between the portion of the adhesive layer and the cover glass of Kim to device of Lee in order to provide a light-shielding member that is made of a material capable of absorbing light on a recessed portion of a cover glass (Col 5, lines 40-45, Kim).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Lee further discloses (figs. 1-6) wherein: the adhesive layer extends into the groove (fig.3).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Kim further teaches (figs. 1-8) wherein: the light blocking layer extends from inside the groove to the outer edge of the cover glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the light blocking layer extends from inside the groove of Kim to device of Lee in order to provide a light-shielding member that is made of a material capable of absorbing light (Col 5, lines 40-45, Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Lee further discloses (figs. 1-6) wherein: the groove is provided in plural including sub-grooves (two grooves) each extending along the outer edge of the cover glass.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Lee further discloses (figs. 1-6) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a triangle (fig.4).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Lee further discloses (figs. 1-6) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a quadrangle (fig.3).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1. Lee further discloses (figs. 1-6) wherein: the display panel includes a side surface extending along the outer edge of the cover glass, and in a direction along the display device, an end of the adhesive layer which is closest to the outer edge of the cover glass is adjacent to the side surface of the display panel.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses (figs. 1-6) a display panel (30); a cover glass (16) facing the display panel and having an outer edge; a light blocking layer (14) at the outer edge of the cover glass, the light blocking layer defining a groove (12) therein which extends along the outer edge; and an adhesive layer (20) which comprises an optically clear resin and combines the display panel and the cover glass to each other (fig.3). Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the adhesive layer is between the display panel and the light blocking layer, at the groove in the light blocking layer. However, Kim teaches (figs 1-8) wherein a portion of the adhesive layer (250) is between the display panel and the light blocking layer (110), at the groove (120) in the light blocking layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine light blocking layer is between the portion of the adhesive layer and the cover glass of Kim to device of Lee in order to provide a light-shielding member that is made of a material capable of absorbing light on a recessed portion of a cover glass (Col 5, lines 40-45, Kim).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11. Lee further teaches (figs. 1-6) wherein: the adhesive layer extends into the groove (fig.3).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11. Lee further teaches (figs. 1-6) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a triangle (fig.4).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11. Lee further teaches (figs. 1-6) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a quadrangle (fig.3).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11. Lee further teaches (figs. 1-6) wherein: the display panel includes a side surface extending along the outer edge of the cover glass, and in a direction along the display device, an end of the adhesive layer which is closest to the outer edge of the cover glass is adjacent to the side surface of the display panel.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11. Kim further teaches (figs. 1-8) teaches wherein: the groove (fig.2a) is recessed into a partial thickness of the light blocking layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine recessed groove of Kim to device of Lee in order to provide a light-shielding member that is made of a material capable of absorbing light (Col 5, lines 40-45, Kim).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Kim et al and further in view of Tan et al (US Patent No. 12408283 B2 and Tan hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 13, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11, but fails to disclose the groove is provided in plural numbers in the light blocking layer, the grooves including sub-grooves each extending along the outer edge of the cover glass. However, Tan further teaches the groove is provided in plural numbers (H2 and 221) in the light blocking layer, the grooves including sub-grooves each extending along the outer edge of the cover glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a light blocking layer as claimed of Tan to device of Lee/Kim in order to shield the bottom portion structure and visible light (Col 5, lines 15-20, Tan).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Kim et al and further in view of Ai et al (US Patent No. 10020462 B1 and Ai hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 7, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a semi-circle. However, Ai teaches (fig.9) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove (30) is a semi-circle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a semi-circular groove of Ai to device of Lee/Kim in order to facilitate bending (Col 4, lines 25-30, Ai).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove is a semi-circle. However, Ai teaches (fig.9) wherein: a cross-sectional shape of the groove (30) is a semi-circle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a semi-circular groove of Ai to device of Lee/Kim in order to facilitate bending (Col 4, lines 25-30, Ai).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in view of Kim et al and further in view of Jang et al (US Patent No. 8866379 B2 and Jang hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, but fails to disclose a polarization layer between the adhesive layer and the display panel. However, Jang teaches (figs.1-6C) a polarization layer (not shown) between the adhesive layer and the display panel (claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a polarization layer of Jang to device of Lee/Kim in order to block the inner space of the groove from the outside (Col 8, lines 5-10, Jang).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee/Kim/Jang discloses the display device of claim 8. Jang further teaches a reflection reduction layer (col 5, lines 40-50) between the polarization layer and the adhesive layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a reflection reduction layer of Jang to device of Lee/ Kim in order to enables reflection of light by using high electrical conductivity (Col 8, lines 5-10, Jang).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11, but fails to disclose a polarization layer between the adhesive layer and the display panel. However, Jang teaches (figs.1-6C) a polarization layer (not shown) between the adhesive layer and the display panel (claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a polarization layer of Jang to device of Lee/Kim in order to block the inner space of the groove from the outside (Col 8, lines 5-10, Jang).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee/Kim/Jang discloses the display device of claim 17. Jang further teaches a reflection reduction layer (col 5, lines 40-50) between the polarization layer and the adhesive layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a reflection reduction layer of Jang to device of Lee/Kim in order to enables reflection of light by using high electrical conductivity (Col 8, lines 5-10, Jang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 11647648 B2), Wang (US 20220238820 A1) and Seo (US 20200331799 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 ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights