DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 12/19/2025.
Currently, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 4, 6, and 10-18 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-9 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach that “the second cover part is truncated at a level of the second surface of the substrate,” as recited in amended claim 1. However, it would be obvious that the height of Li’s (US Pub. No. 2021/0080774) encapsulation adhesive can only be below, above, or at a same height as the top surface of Li’s substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art to have Li’s encapsulation adhesive be at a same relative height as Li’s substrate because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Applicant also argues that the cited prior art does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 are persuasive (see allowable subject matter below).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LI (US Pub. No. 2021/0080774) in view of TOMIOKA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0051858) and further in view of HUANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0214137).
Regarding independent claim 1, Li teaches a display device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1, 10, ¶ [0028]) including:
a first surface (Fig. 1, bottommost surface of 10);
a second surface (Fig. 1, topmost surface of 10) opposite to the first surface;
and a side surface (Fig. 1, left surface of 10) extending from the first surface to the second surface;
a film (Fig. 1, 40, ¶¶ [0003] & [0031] teaches a flexible printed circuit (FPC) board. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an FPC includes a film) having an end attached to the first surface of the substrate and bent from the end to cover the side surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, ¶ [0031]);
and a cover member (Fig. 1, 60, ¶ [0028]) including:
a first cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 on a level vertically below the bottommost surface of 10) disposed on the first surface of the substrate;
and a second cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 on a level vertically above the bottommost surface of 10) disposed on the side surface of the substrate,
wherein the film is disposed between the first surface of the substrate and the first cover part and between the side surface of the substrate and the second cover part (Fig. 1);
the second cover part is truncated at a level of the second surface of the substrate (It would be obvious that the height of Li’s encapsulation adhesive 60 can only be below, above, or at a same height as the top surface of Li’s substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art to have Li’s encapsulation adhesive be at a same relative height as Li’s substrate because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v).
However, Li does not explicitly teach that the second cover part has an outwardly convex shape with respect to the side surface of the substrate with at least part of the outwardly convex shape disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the substrate.
However, Tomioka is a pertinent art that teaches [a] second cover part (Fig. 24, portion of REO horizontally overlapping with 50, ¶ [0078]) has an outwardly convex shape with respect to the side surface of the substrate (Fig. 24, 50, ¶ [0077]) with at least part of the outwardly convex shape disposed between the first surface (Fig. 24, bottom surface of 50) and the second surface (Fig. 24, top surface of 50) of the substrate (Fig. 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s encapsulation adhesive 60 to be curved in a similar manner to Tomioka’s outer resin REO (Fig. 24) in order to suppress the peeling off and breaking of wiring lines (Tomioka ¶ [0082]).
However, Li modified by Tomioka does not explicitly teach that a filler is disposed between the film and the side surface of the substrate, and the filler contacts the side surface of the substrate and the film.
However, Huang is a pertinent art that teaches that a filler (Fig. 3, 12, ¶ [0037]) is disposed between the film (Fig. 3, 2, ¶ [0025]) and the side surface of the substrate (Fig. 2, 1, ¶ [0025]), and the filler contacts the side surface of the substrate and the film (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li modified by Tomioka’s device to further include a moisture oxygen proof film layer according to the teaching of Huang (Fig. 3) in order to prevent moisture/oxygen from affecting electronics in the display panel, thereby improving durability (Huang ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Li modified by Tomioka modified by Huang teaches the display device of claim 1, and Li teaches that the first cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 vertically below the bottommost surface of 10) has a first thickness (Th1 in annotated Figure below), the first thickness being from the first surface (Fig. 1, bottommost surface of 10) of the substrate to a top surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of 60. The Examiner notes that the orientation of Li’s device is vertically flipped compared to Applicant’s device.) of the first cover part along a direction perpendicular to the plane of the first surface, and the second cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 vertically above the bottommost surface of 10) has a second thickness (Th2 in annotated Figure below), the second thickness being from the side surface of the substrate to a position on a side surface of the first cover part farthest away from the side surface in a direction parallel to the plane of the first surface.
However, Li modified by Tomioka does not explicitly teach that the second thickness is smaller than the first thickness.
However, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an encapsulation adhesive should be should be sufficiently thick enough to achieve complete shielding of the bonding section (Li ¶ [0029]) while being thin enough to reduce lateral bezel size (Li ¶ [0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to account for these competing considerations. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the relative thicknesses of Li' s encapsulation adhesive and could have easily arrived within the Applicant' s claimed range without resorting to the Applicant' s disclosure. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 214405.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Li Fig. 1
Regarding claim 3, Li modified by Tomioka modified by Huang teaches the display device of claim 2, and Li teaches that the cover member (Fig. 1, 60, ¶ [0028]) directly contacts the substrate (Fig. 1, 10, ¶ [0028]); the second thickness (Th2 in annotated Figure above) is determined from the side surface of the substrate to a position on a side surface (Fig. 1, leftmost portion of 60 at the same vertical height as the bottommost surface of 10) of the first cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 vertically below the bottommost surface of 10) that intersects the plane of the first surface, the second cover part (Fig. 1, portion of 60 vertically above bottommost surface of 10) is disposed on a side surface of the first cover part, and the first cover part and the second cover part are integral with each other (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Li modified by Tomioka modified by Huang teaches the display deice of claim 1, and Huang teaches that the filler (Fig. 3, 3, ¶ [0037] teaches that moisture oxygen proof film 3 can include polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is a type of resin) comprises a resin material.
Regarding claim 7, Li modified by Tomioka modified by Huang teaches the display device of claim 1, and Li teaches a display area (Fig. 1, area overlapping with 20, ¶ [0028] teaches a display section attached to 20) displaying a screen;
and a non-display area (Fig. 1, area not overlapping 20, ¶ [0028] teaches a bonding section extending from the display section to beyond 20) adjacent to the display area, wherein the film and the cover member are disposed in the non-display area (Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LI (US Pub. No. 2021/0080774) in view of TOMIOKA et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0051858) and further in view of HUANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0214137) and further in view AN et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0402447).
Regarding claim 8, Li modified by Tomioka modified by Huang teaches the display device of claim 7, and Li teaches an LCD display (¶ [0028]).
However, Li modified by Tomioka does not explicitly teach pixels disposed in the display area, wherein each of the pixels includes an inorganic light emitting element.
However, An is a pertinent art that teaches pixels (Figs. 1-2A, DA , ¶ [0049] teaches each pixels in DA can be inorganic light emitting) disposed in the display area, wherein each of the pixels includes an inorganic light emitting element.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a liquid crystal display and an inorganic light emitting display are both capable of displaying an image and would be interchangeable. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Li modified by Tomioka’s display device to be an inorganic light emitting device similar to the one taught by An (Figs. 1-2A) with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to exchange a liquid crystal display for an inorganic light emitting display depending on relative manufacturing costs.
Allowable subject matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
With respect to claim 9, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “the second cover part has a first flat surface and a second flat surface opposite to the first flat surface, the second flat surface being at a level of the second surface of the substrate, and the second cover part has an outwardly convex shape with respect to the side surface of the substrate with at least part of the outwardly convex shape disposed between the first surface and the second surface of the substrate, and the outwardly convex shape extends between the first flat surface and the second flat surface and is truncated at the level of the second surface of the substrate.”
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813