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 without traverse of Invention I and Species A1 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al (PGPub 2017/0257988 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a method for manufacturing a display device (Abstract), the method comprising:
preparing a display device comprising a display panel including a first alignment mark (Fig. 1- display panel 20 with alignment mark A1) and a first circuit board including a second alignment mark (Fig. 1- PCB 30 with alignment mark A2) and on one end of the display panel (Fig. 1- PCB 30 on display panel 20);
disposing the display device on a stage (Fig. 1- stage 200);
setting a same point as the first alignment mark on a photographing range of a position sensing unit (Fig. 2- location detecting unit; [0138]), which photographs the display device and the stage [0138], to a base mark [0138];
setting the base mark as a reference mark in consideration of a relative position relation between the first alignment mark and the base mark by sensing the first alignment mark [0138]; and
determining a bending state of the display device by sensing the base mark and the second alignment mark [0150] and identifying a position relation between the base mark and the second alignment mark [0150].
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (PGPub 2017/0257988 cited in IDS) in view of Ryu et al (PGPub 2013/0201639 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi does not specify wherein the preparing the display device includes: disposing the first circuit board including the second alignment mark on the one end of the display panel including the first alignment mark; determining an alignment state of the first circuit board and the display panel by identifying the position relation of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark; and attaching the first circuit board to the one end of the display panel.
Ryu teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a display device (Abstract) wherein the preparing the display device includes:
disposing the first circuit board including the second alignment mark (Figs. 5a and b- circuit board 200 with alignment mark AM2) on the one end of the display panel including the first alignment mark (Figs. 5a and b- display panel 100 with alignment mark AM1);
determining an alignment state of the first circuit board and the display panel by identifying the position relation of the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark [0077]; and
attaching the first circuit board to the one end of the display panel (Fig. 5b- showing the bonded display panel 100 and circuit board 200) in order to accurately align the bonding areas on the display panel and circuit board [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Choi to include the specific method of preparing the display device as taught by Ryu with reasonable expectation of success to accurately align the bonding areas on the display panel and circuit board [0093].
Regarding Claim 3, Choi further teaches the determining the bending state of the display device includes primarily aligning the display device by adjusting a relative position and angle of the display device [0132] and a bending unit by using position data of the base mark and the second alignment mark before bending of the display device [0150].
Regarding Claim 4, Choi further teaches the determining the bending state of the display device includes performing the bending of the display device by allowing the bending unit to bend the first circuit board [0158];
secondarily aligning the display device by adjusting a relative position of the display panel and the first circuit board which is bent, by using position data of the base mark and the second alignment mark after the bending of the display device (Fig. 4); and
determining whether a difference between the position data of the base mark and the second alignment mark and set data is less than or equal to a reference value by comparing the position data of the base mark and the second alignment mark with the set data after the bending of the display device [0158].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 6/8/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights