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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 27, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claimed limitations of "an adhesive material" and “a thermal conductive material”, as recited in claim 1, line 13, is unclear as to whether said limitations are the same as or different from "a material", as recited in claim 1, line 9.
The claimed limitation of projections of adjacent ones of the plurality of holes", as recited in claim 12, is unclear as to said limitation is in one-to-one, one-two multiple or multiple-to-one relationship between said projections and adjacent ones of the plurality of holes applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "projections of the adjacent ones of the plurality of holes", as recited in claim 12, lines 7-8, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “projections of adjacent ones of the plurality of holes”, as recited in claim 12, line 4.
The claimed limitation of "different ones of the plurality of rows", as recited in claim 12, lines 7-8, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "different ones of the plurality of rows", as recited in claim 11, lines 4-5.
The claimed limitation of "a side of the metal tensile layer", as recited in claim 12, lines 8-9, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a side of the metal tensile layer", as recited in claim 12, line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (2021/0337686) in view of Shen et al. (2017/0194596).
As for claim 1, Sim et al. show in Figs. 1-7 and related text an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display module 1, comprising:
an OLED display panel 100;
a backplate 410, arranged at a side of the OLED display panel;
a thermal conductive layer 452, arranged at a side of the backplate away from the OLED display panel; and
a metal tensile layer 20, arranged at a side of the thermal conductive layer away from the backplate;
wherein one of a material of the thermal conductive layer and a material of the metal tensile layer is made of a material (graphite) having a thermal conductivity (400W/mK) greater than a thermal conductivity (15.2W/mK) of stainless steel ([0092]).
Sim et al. do not disclose the thermal conductive layer comprises a first adhesive layer that comprises an adhesive material and a thermal conductive material doped in the adhesive material.
Shen et al. teach in Fig. 5 and related text the thermal conductive layer 40/20 comprises a first adhesive layer 21/41 that comprises an adhesive material 21 and a thermal conductive material 41 doped in the adhesive material ([0035]-[0036]).
Sim et al. and Shen et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Shen et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to include the thermal conductive layer comprising a first adhesive layer that comprising an adhesive material and a thermal conductive material doped in the adhesive material, as taught by Shen et al., in Sim et al.'s device, in order to have a more uniform temperature and improve stability of the device (Shen: [0035]).
Furthermore, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As for claim 10, the combined device shows the metal tensile layer comprises a plurality of holes disposed in an array on the metal tensile layer (Sim: Fig. 7).
As for claim 12, the combined device shows the plurality of holes are disposed in a plurality of rows; and
wherein
projections of the adjacent ones of the plurality of holes in different ones of the plurality of rows align with each other along a side of the metal tensile layer; or
projections of the adjacent ones of the plurality of holes in different ones of the plurality of rows are staggered with each other along a side of the metal tensile layer.
Claim(s) 2-3, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (2021/0337686) and Shen et al. (2017/0194596) in view of Wang et al. (CN110853520A).
As for claims 2 and 3, Sim et al. and Shen et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the material of the metal tensile layer has the thermal conductivity in a horizontal direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the horizontal direction and has the thermal conductivity in a vertical direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the vertical direction (claim 2); and the material of the metal tensile layer comprises one or more of a ferrous nickel alloy, an aluminum alloy, a copper alloy, a titanium alloy, and a silver alloy (claim 3).
Wang et al. teach in Figs. 1-16 and related text:
As for claim 2, the material of the metal tensile layer has the thermal conductivity in a horizontal direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the horizontal direction and has the thermal conductivity in a vertical direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the vertical direction ([0043]-[0086]).
As for claim 3, the material of the metal tensile layer comprises one or more of a ferrous nickel alloy, an aluminum alloy, a copper alloy, a titanium alloy, and a silver alloy ([0043]-[0086]).
Sim et al., Shen et al. and Wang et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a display device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sim et al. and Shen et al. with the specified feature(s) of Wang et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to include the material of the metal tensile layer having the thermal conductivity in a horizontal direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the horizontal direction and having the thermal conductivity in a vertical direction greater than the thermal conductivity of the stainless steel in the vertical direction, and the material of the metal tensile layer comprising one or more of a ferrous nickel alloy, an aluminum alloy, a copper alloy, a titanium alloy, and a silver alloy as taught by Wang et al., in Sim et al. and Shen et al.'s device, in order to improve folding effect, heat dissipation and conductivity of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights