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 .
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.
Claim(s) 6-10, 12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2021/0204454) in view of Gong et al. (US 2021/0343992).
With regard to claim 6, Son teaches, in Fig 5, a display device, comprising: a display panel (110); a metal film (200, 210, 220) comprising a base layer (200, 210) and a plurality of filaments (220), wherein the base layer comprises a first surface (top surface in the figure) and a second surface (bottom surface in the figure) opposite to the first surface, and the plurality of filaments are formed on the first surface of the base layer to increase a heat dissipation area of the metal film (see [0074]-[0076], Fig 6); and an adhesive layer (400) disposed between the display panel and the metal film, wherein the second surface of the base layer is adhered to the display panel through the adhesive layer ([0062]).
Son does not explicitly teach that an entire surface of the second surface of the base layer is adhered to the display panel.
Gong teaches, in Fig 7, that an entire surface of the second surface (upper surface) of the base layer (130) is adhered to the display panel (140) so that, “uniform heating can be achieved,” ([0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Son with the geometry of Gong so that uniform heating can be achieved.
With regard to claim 7, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that the base layer and the plurality of filaments of the metal film are integrally formed (see figure).
With regard to claim 8, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that an end of each of the filaments comprises a hook structure ([0068]).
With regard to claim 9, Son teaches, in Fig 2, that the display panel comprises: a substrate (111) adhered to the second surface of the base layer through the adhesive layer; a display function layer (OLED) disposed on the substrate; and a polarizer (154) disposed on the display function layer.
With regard to claim 10, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that the metal film is made of aluminum or copper ([0062]).
With regard to claim 12, Son teaches, in Fig 5, a manufacturing method of a display device, comprising: providing a display panel (110) and a base layer (200, 210, 220), wherein the base layer comprises a first surface (top surface in the figure) and a second surface (bottom surface in the figure) opposite to the first surface; forming a plurality of filaments (220) on the first surface of the base layer; and adhering the display panel to the second surface of the base layer ([0062]-[0063]), wherein the base layer and the plurality of filaments together form a metal film to increase a heat dissipation area of the metal film (see [0074]-[0076], Fig 6), and the metal film is configured to support the display panel ([0062]).
Son does not explicitly teach adhering the display panel to an entire surface of the second surface of the base layer.
Gong teaches, in Fig 7, adhering the display panel (140) to an entire surface of the second surface (upper surface) of the base layer (130) so that, “uniform heating can be achieved,” ([0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Son with the geometry of Gong so that uniform heating can be achieved.
With regard to claim 15, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that an end of each of the filaments comprises a hook structure ([0068]).
With regard to claim 16, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that the base layer and the plurality of filaments of the metal film are integrally formed (see figure).
With regard to claim 17, Son teaches, in Figs 2 and 5, that in the step of providing the display panel, the manufacturing method further comprises: providing a substrate (111); disposing a display function layer (OLED) on the substrate; and disposing a polarizer (154) on the display function layer; wherein the manufacturing method further comprises: disposing an adhesive layer (400) between the substrate and the base layer, and adhering the substrate to the second surface of the base layer through the adhesive layer (see Fig 5, [0062]).
With regard to claim 18, Son teaches, in Fig 5, that the metal film is made of aluminum or copper ([0068]).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2021/0204454) in view of Gong et al. (US 2021/0343992) and Urbish et al. (US 5774341).
With regard to claim 11, Son/Gong teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 6.
Son/Gong does not explicitly teach that a diameter of a cross section of each of the filaments ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Urbish teaches that a diameter of a cross section of each of the filaments ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm (column 2, lines 50-55) to, “interlock with a strong gripping force,” (column 2, line 65-column 3, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Son/Gong with the filament diameter of Urbish to interlock with a strong gripping force.
With regard to claim 19, Son/Gong teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 12.
Son/Gong does not explicitly teach that a diameter of a cross section of each of the filaments ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Urbish teaches that a diameter of a cross section of each of the filaments ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm (column 2, lines 50-55) to, “interlock with a strong gripping force,” (column 2, line 65-column 3, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the method of Son/Gong with the filament diameter of Urbish to interlock with a strong gripping force.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2021/0204454) in view of Gong et al. (US 2021/0343992), CN 102564198 (citations herein are made to the document provided by the applicant in the IDS of 12/28/2022), and Liang et al. (US 2020/0041217).
With regard to claim 13, Son/Gong teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 12.
Son/Gong does not explicitly teach that when the plurality of filaments are formed on the first surface of the base layer, the manufacturing method further comprises: forming the plurality of filaments on the first surface of the base layer by a mechanical thread rolling method.
‘198 teaches, in Fig 2, that when the plurality of filaments (200) are formed on the first surface of the base layer (100), the manufacturing method further comprises: forming the plurality of filaments on the first surface of the base layer by a wire drawing method, “thereby effectively improving radiation efficiency,” (abstract translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the method of Son/Gong with the wire drawing of ‘198 to improve radiation efficiency.
Son/Gong/’198 disclose the claimed invention except for the use of wire drawing instead of thread rolling. Liang teaches ([0054]) that thread rolling and wire drawing are equivalent methods known in the art. Therefore, because these heat dissipation structure formation methods were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute thread rolling for wire drawing since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 2021/0204454) in view of Gong et al. (US 2021/0343992) and Liu et al. (US 2020/0103181).
With regard to claim 14, Son/Gong teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 12.
Gong also teaches, in Figs 3-5, that when the plurality of filaments are formed on the first surface (top surface in the figure) of the base layer (110, 120a), the manufacturing method further comprises: forming a patterned layer (120b) on the first surface of the base layer; removing a part of the base layer that is not covered by the patterned layer to form a plurality of vertical filaments (120) on the first surface of the base layer ([0055]-[0061]).
Son/Gong do not explicitly teach applying a pressure to the plurality of vertical filaments of the base layer to bend the plurality of vertical filaments, thereby forming the plurality of filaments on the first surface of the base layer.
Liu teaches, in Figs 1-3, applying a pressure to the plurality of vertical filaments (21) of the base layer (1) to bend the plurality of vertical filaments ([0027]), thereby forming the plurality of filaments on the first surface of the base layer, “to transfer heat generated by the electronic module to the heat sink body 1, thereby dissipating the electronic module,” ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the method of Son/Gong with the bending of Liu to transfer heat generated by the electronic module, thereby dissipating the electronic module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) 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.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth above.
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 RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 5172721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights