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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US2020/0084899A1).
Kang discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 1A, 5A and 5C:
Claim 1. An electronic device, comprising:
a circuit substrate (100), comprising a connection pad (PD1-P);
a conductive adhesive (ACF), covering the connection pad;
a driving element (FPCB1 with DC), disposed on the connection pad, and electrically connected to the circuit substrate through the conductive adhesive, wherein the driving element comprises a circuit board (FPCB1) and a chip (DC) disposed on the circuit board; and
a first protective layer (SM1), covering a part of the conductive adhesive.
Claim 2. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein there is a distance between a lateral edge of the conductive adhesive close to the first protective layer and a lateral edge of the driving element close to the first protective layer. See Fig. 5C.
Claim 6. The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first protective layer further covers a part of the driving element. See Fig. 5C.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang.
Whereas Kang does not specifically disclose a numerical value for the claimed distance, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to position the pads P-O (see Fig. 5C) close to the left edge of FPCB1, such as less than 5 mm away from the edge, to minimize the amount of sealing member (SM1) material needed to fill the gap GP1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to implement the invention of Kang such that the claimed distance is greater than 0 mm, as shown in Fig. 5C, but also less than 5 mm.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Yoshinaga (US2020/0041845A1).
Kang discloses the material for the first protective layer SM1 is a “silicon[e] resin” (see [0121]), but does not disclose a reflectivity of the first protective layer is greater than or equal to 90%, a material of the first protective layer comprising a silicon-based colloid.
Yoshinaga is in the same art as Kang, disclosing utilizing a protective layer 15B, which is a silicone resin including a titanium oxide white powder (i.e., silicon-based colloid), and has a reflectance of preferably no less than 90%. See [0123] for a discussion of sealing resin portion 15, which includes portions 15A and 15B. 15B fills a space around an electronic component (in this case an LED). Whereas the material 15B of Yoshinaga is used for the light emitting module 100 used as a backlight in display 1000, Kang is also related to display manufacturing (see display panel DP in Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a silicone resin as taught by Yoshinaga, as the sealing material for protective layer SM1 of Kang, since it has the same properties requires by Kang for this purpose (i.e., it is a silicone resin, which has moisture resistance and is suitable for sealing an electronic component). Given that this material is available for use in the display manufacturing art, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize it for multiple sealing applications, rather than specifying a separate sealing material for each application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights