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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2024, and 08/22/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant' s amendment filed 02/26/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Title has been amended; previous objection withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically the applicant argues on page 3 of remarks recites “Applicant first notes that Lee's embodiment of Figs. 15A, 15B, and 16 is the only embodiment including a heat dissipation plate HSK, relied on in the Office Action to teach the heat dissipation sheet as claimed” Examiner respectfully notices that nothing in claim language distinguishes plate from sheet thus the heat dissipation of the reference properly reads upon heat dissipation sheet as written in claim. The Examiner further notes these different embodiments teach, heat dissipation route structure (Figures 19-21) that further set a path for leading heat to the outside or too pads (π107); thus one of ordinary skill could readily address heat sheet as claimed in claim 1 of instant application.
The applicant next argues page 3 remarks,” Here, the Office Action does not identify any problem in the prior art or any other reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee's embodiment of Figs. 15A, 15B, and 16 to incorporate features of the embodiment of Lee's Figs. 19A, 19B, 20 and 21. Rather, the Office Action summarily concludes that it would have been obvious to make the modification because it would allegedly "have a device not only dispersing but guiding heat generated from an integrated circuit (IC) to an outside or surroundings of the IC. This hindsight-based, conclusory analysis cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant for the following reason , first the examiner notes the applicant just jumped to the conclusion without noting that prior to making any statements concerning that which as a POSITA (person of ordinary skill) found obvious the examiner noted via Lee Figure 21 discloses the portion of the invention which was missing from claim 1 from Lee figure 16, next by illustrating this would clearly alert a POSITA that first the changes that would be required are possible without looking at the applicant’s disclosure and that the goal for heat dissipation likewise would be achieved.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Lee does disclose in figure 21 , paragraph 115 “the printed circuit board 160a of the fifth embodiment has the grooves HM1 and HM2 and the via holes VH1 and VH2 configured to provide a heat dissipation route capable of guiding heat generated due to operation of the level shifter 135a from the inside of the level shifter mounting area 135S to the outside of the level shifter mounting area 135S. As a result, the display device including the printed circuit board 160a of the fifth embodiment of the present disclosure may achieve efficient heat dissipation even though a printed circuit board, on which a circuit such as the level shifter 135a is mounted, is attached to the back surface of the display panel 150. In addition, since the printed circuit board 160a is configured to have a multilayer structure having four layers or more, and a heat dissipation route is formed through two of the multiple layers spaced apart from the display panel 150 by a maximum distance, it may be possible to alleviate influence of heat generated from the level shifter 135a on the display panel 150” thus the problem to handle heat dissipation in a multilayer printed circuit board while guiding the heat out of the device is not an unknown problem like the applicant suggest. Lee does not mention increased manufacturing cost when going from on embodiment to another , so the examiner takes the position that the comments made by the applicant are conclusionary in nature. All arguments having being addressed; rejection remains this action Is final.
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.
Claims 1-4,7, 12 , and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210173248 A1.) (Lee, hereafter) (of record, ids).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (Figures 1-21 and corresponding text) an electroluminescent display device (Figure 16), comprising: : a display part (150) configured to display an image; an encapsulation unit(COP1-COP3) disposed over the display part (150); and a heat dissipation sheet ( HSK, heat plate)disposed over the encapsulation unit COP1-COP3), Lee fails to disclose wherein the encapsulation unit includes a sealing member including a first adhesive layer, a second adhesive layer, a barrier layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, and a hole formed in the second adhesive layer and the barrier layer, and wherein a side surface of the barrier layer is electrically connected to the heat dissipation sheet through a conductive paste injected into the hole.
However Lee discloses in figure 21, an encapsulation unit (INS1-COP4) having a first adhesive (INS2), a second adhesive (INS1)and a barrier layer(COP2) between the first adhesive (INS2), a second adhesive (INS1) . where holes VH1, VH2 are formed in the second adhesive (INS1) and the barrier layer(COP2) and where a side surface of the barrier layer (COP2) is electrically connected to the heat dissipation sheet COP1 HSK through conductive paste onto the hole VH1/VH2 (π107.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electroluminescent display of Lee as disclosed by Lee wherein the encapsulation unit includes a sealing member including a first adhesive layer, a second adhesive layer, a barrier layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, and a hole formed in the second adhesive layer and the barrier layer, and wherein a side surface of the barrier layer is electrically connected to the heat dissipation sheet through a conductive paste injected into the hole the motivation is having a device not only dispersing but guiding heat generated from an integrated circuit (IC) to an outside or surroundings of the IC(Lee, π07)
Regarding claims 2, Lee discloses wherein a part of the first adhesive layer is pressed into the hole and protrudes convexly into the hole. Viewing the arrangement in figures 16 and 21 through an electron microscope one of ordinary skill would recognize this feature.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are made of a polymer material having adhesiveness (π107).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the barrier layer (COP2) is made of a metal material (π107).
Regarding claim 7, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conductive paste includes a silver paste. It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include a silver paste, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claims 12 and 18-21, the limitations Lee discloses wherein the display part includes: a substrate including an active area and a non-active area; a driving element disposed over the substrate, a planarization layer disposed over the driving element; and a light emitting diode disposed over the planarization layer and electrically connected to the driving element (claim 12);a pad and a driving IC disposed over the heat dissipation sheet (claim 18);a flexible film attached to a tip end of the display part and covering the pad and the driving IC (claim 19): a sealant coated onto a side surface of the display part; and a moisture-proof resin coated onto a bonding portion between the display part and the flexible film (claim 20) etc do not appear to contain any additional features which define more than slight constructional changes which come within the scope of the customary (design) practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can be readily contemplated in advance. Alternatively, these limitations are not deemed patentable since the applicant’s disclosure fails to show such limitations to solve any problems or to yield any unobvious advantage that is not within the scope of the teachings applied. Therefore, such limitations would be a matter of design alternative.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electroluminescent display of Lee as disclosed by Lee to modify as disclosed by Lee to derive the limitations set forth above the motivation being that optimization along with design choice re2qures only routine skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 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. Claim 6,8,10,11 are rejected due upon claim due to dependency upon claim 5;
Claims 13-17 are rejected due upon claim due to dependency upon claim 9).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACIE Y GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thursday, 10am-8pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
TRACIE Y. GREEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/TRACIE Y GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875