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 Species I in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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(s) 1-2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US-20230222947-A1 – hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a display panel (Fig.2 10; ¶0019), comprising:
a driving substrate (Fig.2 210; ¶0021) comprising a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (side surface), wherein an extending direction of the first surface (top surface) intersects with an extending direction of the second surface (side surface), the first surface (top surface) is a front surface of the driving substrate (210), and the second surface (side surface) is a side surface of the driving substrate (210);
a light-emitting device (Fig.2 220; ¶0021) disposed on the first surface (top surface) of the driving substrate (210);
a first encapsulation structure (Fig.2 250 top only; ¶0027) covering the first surface (top surface), and encapsulating the light-emitting device (220); and
a second encapsulation structure (Fig.2 250 side only and 150; ¶0027 and ¶0034) comprising at least one coating layer (250 side only) and at least one adhesive layer (150), wherein one of the coating layer (250 side only) and the adhesive layer (150) directly covers the second surface (side surface) of the driving substrate (210);
in a vertical direction of the second surface (side surface) of the driving substrate (210), the coating layer (250 side only) and the adhesive layer (150) are alternately arranged, and both the coating layer (250 side only) and the adhesive layer (150) are organic layers (epoxy resin is mentioned in ¶0037).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein an outermost layer of the second encapsulation structure (150) is the adhesive layer (150 is an adhesive layer; ¶0034).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein a surface roughness of the coating layer (250 side only) and a surface roughness of the adhesive layer (150) are both less (circuit substrate materials like PCB are known to have a higher surface roughness than epoxy resin) than a surface roughness of the second surface (top of 210).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches a splicing panel, characterized in comprising at least two display panels according to claim 1, wherein the display panels are spliced (Fig.2 shows two driving substrates 210 that are separated).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the display panel according to claim 1.
Lin does not teach wherein a thickness of the coating layer is less than or equal to 50 micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the coating layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the most relevant prior art reference US-20230222947-A1 to Lin et al. teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but not the limitations of “the second front encapsulation layer is disposed on a surface of the first coating layer away from the driving substrate, and the first adhesive layer covers a side surface of the first coating layer and a side surface of the second front encapsulation layer” as recited. Therefore, claim 4 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Claims 5-6 are also objected to as being dependent on allowable claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20230246142-A1 and US-20220407040-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817