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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 and new claim 20 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.
Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s Remarks pages 7-9) highlight the new limitations of claim 1 “the light shielding layer is formed of a stacked plurality of layers including (i) an electrically conductive layer with a plurality of opening areas and (ii) at least one layer arranged between the electrically conductive layer and the cover glass” as allegedly overcoming the prior art of record. However, the disclosures of US 20220310979 A1 (Li et al) in view of US 20170068128 A1 (Lim et al) and US 20190285953 A1 (Kao et al) teach those limitations when the disclosure of Lim in particular is given a modified interpretation when compared to the analysis in the Office action dated 8/22/2025 (see rejection of claim 1 below for further details), due to the introduction of the ‘at least one layer’ feature into claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the disclosures of Li, Lim, and Kao, when further considered in view of US 20200227491 A1 (Wang et al) and US 20080078991 A1 (Kim), render the limitations of claim obvious (see rejection of claim 20 below for further details)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent publications US 20220310979 A1 (Li et al hereinafter Li) in view of US 20170068128 A1 (Lim et al hereinafter Lim) and US 20190285953 A1 (Kao et al hereinafter Kao).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a display device (the device of FIGS. 1-3 ¶ [0010-0012]) comprising: a display panel (FIGS. 1-3, display panel 10 ¶ [0038-0039]) configured to dispose a plurality of pixels (an OLED display panel 10 may be configured to dispose a plurality of pixels to achieve a display function ¶ [0039, 0165-0172]); a cover glass (FIG. 2, cover plate 11 may be a cover glass on an upper surface of display panel 10 ¶ [0040]) disposed on one surface of the display panel; a heat dissipation sheet (FIG. 2, conductive shielding layer 12 has heat dissipation properties and is on a lower surface of display panel 10 ¶ [0041]) disposed on another surface of the display panel and having electrical conductivity; a light shielding layer (FIGS. 1-2, shielding layer 17 is at edges of cover 11 ¶ [0110-0113]; its conductivity is implied by charges 20 passing through it to reach conductive film 13 ¶ [0042]) disposed at edges of a surface of the cover glass and having electrical conductivity; and a discharge member (FIGS. 1-2, conductive film 13 ¶ [0042]) configured to discharge static electricity generated in the cover glass to the heat dissipation sheet by electrically connecting the heat dissipation sheet with the light shielding layer (conductive film 13 discharges static electricity from cover 11 through shielding layer 17 and routes it to conductive shielding layer 12 ¶ [0042]), wherein light shielding layer is formed of a stacked plurality of layers (FIG. 2, an upper and lower half of shielding layer 17 may constitute a plurality of layers) including (i) an electrically conductive layer (conductivity in the upper half of shielding layer 17 is implied by charges 20 passing through it to reach conductive film 13 ¶ [0042]). Li does not further disclose that the electrically conductive layer is with a plurality of opening areas, and (ii) at least one layer arranged between the electrically conductive layer and the cover glass.
However, Lim discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 3 ¶ [0035]) comprising a light shielding layer (FIG. 3, light blocking layer 330 and protective layer 350 both shield against light ¶ [0060, 0065, 0071-0073]) formed of a stacked plurality of layers (FIG. 3, light blocking layer 330 and a lower half of protective layer 350 may constitute a first layer, and the upper half of protective layer 350 may constitute a second layer), wherein a lower layer includes a plurality of opening areas (FIG. 3, a plurality of opening areas in the lower half of protective layer 350 are present in its lattice pattern ¶ [0071]), and (ii) at least one layer arranged between the lower layer and the cover glass (FIG. 3, the upper half of protective layer 350 is between the lower portion layer and window substrate 310; it is not precluded in the claim that the ‘at least one layer’ also has openings). Lim also teaches that the lattice pattern in its upper protective layer provides a UV light blocking effect (¶ [0071]), protecting the device against UV light.
Lim did not explicitly state that the lower layer is electrically conductive. However, an electrically conductive material may be used for UV protection in a display device, as indicated by Kao, which discloses a display device wherein a UV protection layer may be electrically conductive (FIG 3B, shielding layer 130 shields against UV light and may be an electrically conductive material ¶ [0027-0028]), and Li also indicated that their light shielding layer may be conductive (Li FIG. 2, conductivity in the upper half of shielding layer 17 is implied by charges 20 passing through it to reach conductive film 13 ¶ [0042]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the UV light protection layer of Lim in view of Kao such that it would be an electrically conductive layer, because such materials have been demonstrated effective for that purpose by the prior art, and may be selected based on considerations of materials costs.
Li, Lim, and Kao all pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light shielding layer of Li in view of Lim and Kao such that the electrically conductive layer is with a plurality of opening areas, and (ii) at least one layer is arranged between the electrically conductive layer and the cover glass, in order to protect the device against UV light, and selecting a conductive layer in view of considerations of materials costs.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and further discloses that the electrically conductive layer is formed in a lattice pattern (FIG. 3, protective layer 350, the lower half of which is part of the electrically conductive layer, is formed in a lattice pattern ¶ [0071]) where an area of the electrically conductive layer includes the plurality of opening areas (FIG. 3, the plurality of opening areas in protective layer 350 are present in its lattice pattern ¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above, and further discloses that the lattice pattern is disposed in an area where the discharge member and the light shielding layer overlap with each other (comparing FIG. 2 of Li with FIG. 3 of Lim, the modification of the light shielding layer 17 of Li places the lattice pattern of the light shielding layer of Lim in a position where it overlaps the discharge member conductive film 13 of Li).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Li further discloses that the display panel comprises an active area (Li FIG. 3, main body 101 of display panel 10 includes an active area ¶ [0045-0047]) and a bending area (FIG. 3, rear folded portion 102 of display panel 10 is a bending area since bending occurs ¶ [0045, 0052-0053]) that extends and is bent from a side of the active area (FIG. 3, rear folded portion 102 gets bent from an outer side of the active area in main body 101, though the bending is not shown in the figure ¶ [0053]) and the bending area does not overlap with a discharge area where the light shielding layer and the discharge member are electrically connected with each other (FIG. 3, conductive film 13 does not overlap the bending area at rear folded portion 102).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lim and Kao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20170154947 A1 (Nakamura).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not further disclose that the discharge member is a coated layer of a conductive polymeric compound (it is suggested that conductive film 13 may be a conductive silver paste ¶ [0067-0070]).
However, Nakamura discloses a display device (the display panel of FIGS. 1A-1C ¶ [0022]) wherein conductive materials in the display panel may interchangeably be formed of conductive paste such as silver paste, or of a conductive polymeric compound such as polythiophene, and Nakamura further teaches that conductive pastes have an advantage in being inexpensive, while conductive polymeric compounds have an advantage in being easily applied (¶ [0407]).
Li, Lim, Kao, and Nakamura pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the discharge member of Li in view of Lim and Kao further in view of Nakamura to have the discharge member is a coated layer of a conductive polymeric compound, in order to form the discharge member along the display panel with an easily applied material as taught by Nakamura.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Lim, Kao, and Nakamura discloses the limitations of claim 4 as detailed above, and Li further discloses that the discharge member is formed along a side of the display panel and in contact with the heat dissipation sheet (Li FIG. 2, conductive film 13 is formed along an outer side of display panel 10, and is in contact with heat-dissipating conductive shielding layer 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lim and Kao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publication US 20210210690 A1 (Park et al hereinafter Park).
Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, and Li further discloses a back plate disposed under the display panel (Li FIG. 2, protective layer 30 ¶ [0146]). Li does not further disclose a cushion tape disposed on a rear surface of the back plate.
However, Park discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 4 ¶ [0026-0029]) which comprises a back plate (FIG. 4, protection film 300 ¶ [0047-0049]) disposed under a display panel (FIG. 4, display panel PNL ¶ [0034]), and a cushion tape (FIG. 4, cushion 600 ¶ [0073]) disposed on a rear surface of the back plate (FIG. 4, cushion 600 is on a rear surface of 300). Park also teaches that the cushion tape protects the device against external shocks, improving its overall durability (¶ [0073]).
Li, Lim, Kao, and Park pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Li in view of Park to further include a cushion tape disposed on a rear surface of the back plate, in order to protect the device against external shocks and improve its overall durability.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lim and Kao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent publications US 20200227491 A1 (Wang et al hereinafter Wang) and US 20080078991 A1 (Kim).
Li in view of Lim and Kao discloses the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above, but does not further disclose that in the stacked plurality of layers of the light shielding layer, the at least one layer is configured with a lower conductivity than the electrically conductive layer. However, known materials that are used as light shielding layers and UV blocking layers may be configured as claimed, as is demonstrated by Wang and Kim:
Wang discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 3) wherein a light shielding layer may be formed of copper (FIG. 3, light shielding layer 12 may be formed of copper ¶ [0080]), and Kim discloses a display device (the device of FIG. 3e) wherein a UV blocking layer may be formed of aluminum (FIG. 3e, non-transmissive UV blocking layer 210 may be formed of aluminum ¶ [0098]; aluminum is less conductive than copper). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the UV light protection layer of Lim in view of Wang and Kim because such materials have been demonstrated effective for that purpose by the prior art, and may be selected based on considerations of materials costs; by doing so, the ‘at least one layer’ is formed of aluminum, while the ‘electrically conductive layer’ is formed of a stack of aluminum and copper when applied to the device of Li in view of Lim and Kao, and therefore the at least one layer would have lower conductivity than the electrically conductive layer.
Li, Lim, Kao, Wang, and Kim all pertain to the field of display devices, placing them in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light shielding layer of Li in view of Lim and Kao further in view of Wang and Kim such that in the stacked plurality of layers of the light shielding layer, the at least one layer is configured with a lower conductivity than the electrically conductive layer, in order to provide materials for the light blocking and UV blocking layers of Li in view of Lim, Kao, Wang, and Kim that provide sufficient light and UV blocking properties, in view of considerations of materials costs.
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 EDWARD RHETT CHEEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5pm, Every other Friday 8:30am - 5pm.
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 Gauthier can be reached at 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.
/E.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813