DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2024/0172542 A1) in view of Woo et al. (US 2021/0176872 A1; hereinafter “Woo”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a display module, comprising:
a display panel (a display panel 30) (Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 47 and 53-54); and
a support backplane (a supporting component 101) disposed on a side of the display panel (a backside of 30) where a non-display surface of the display panel is located; wherein the support backplane has a first region (a first region of 101 having a hole h1) and a second region (a second region of 101 having a first support portion 101a) disposed on a periphery of the first region; at least a portion of the support backplane located in the second region (a portion of 101a) is etched away to form at least one groove (an opening 101a2 in 101a as shown in Fig. 4 or a closed recess Gr in 101a as shown in Fig. 8); and the at least one groove constitutes a buffer structure (101a having 101a2/Gr as a buffer structure for reducing residual stress) (Figs. 1-4 and 8 and paragraphs 47-48, 57-65, 77, and 83-86).
Wang does not explicitly teach an electroplating structure is disposed in the first region of the support backplane. Woo teaches a display module (at least a display unit 20 and a bracket assembly 30 of an electronic device 100) (Fig. 1C and paragraph 56), comprising: a display panel (a display panel 131) and a support backplane (a second support member 135) having a first region (135 having a first region around 135h), wherein an electroplating structure (a first sensor module S1) is disposed in the first region (S1 is disposed in the first region around 135h as shown in Fig. 3), and is located on a surface of a side of the support backplane away from the display panel (S1 is located on a bottom surface of a bottom side of 135 away from 131 as shown in Fig. 3); a border of the electroplating structure (a border of S1) is spaced apart from a border of the first region (a border of the first region around 135h as shown in Fig. 3) (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 70-73 and 86-96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wang with that of Woo in order to utilize the first region of the support backplane with the sensor as a part of the display device.
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of “an electroplating structure” in the claim is a product-by process claim and therefore is treated according to MPEP 2113. Even through product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Woo teaches the structure, the claimed method (i.e., “an electroplating structure” as the structure formed by an electroplating step) does not distinguish from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the at least one groove includes a plurality of grooves; the plurality of grooves are loop-shaped, and are sequentially spaced apart from inside to outside (Figs. 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches wherein depths of the plurality of grooves in a first direction are equal, and the first direction is a direction (a x-direction) perpendicular to a plane where the support backplane is located (Figs. 2 and 8-9); or in a direction from the inside to the outside with the first region as a center, the depths of the plurality of grooves in the first direction are sequentially reduced.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches wherein a spacing distance between two adjacent grooves in the plurality of grooves is equal, and a distance between a groove closest to the first region and the first region is greater than or equal to the spacing distance between the two adjacent grooves (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein a ratio of a depth, in a first direction, of each of the plurality of grooves to a thickness, in the first direction, of the support backplane is greater than or equal to 0.5 and is less than 1 (Fig. 9); the first direction is a direction perpendicular to a plane where the support backplane is located (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the first region is in a shape of a circle, and a groove in the at least one groove is in a shape of a circular loop (Fig. 8); and/or a ratio of a peripheral dimension of the second region to a peripheral dimension of the first region is 1.5.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Woo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0209754 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches wherein the display module further comprises: a heat dissipation film (102) disposed on a side of the support backplane proximate to the display panel (Fig. 2 and paragraph 49). Wang in view of Woo does not further teach a first adhesive layer, a polarizer, a second adhesive layer, and a cover plate. Lee teaches a display module (10), comprising: a display panel (100) and a support backplane (220) (paragraphs 41 and 108); a first adhesive layer (340) disposed on a side of the support backplane proximate to the display panel (paragraphs 132-133); a polarizer (140) disposed on a side of the display panel where a display surface of the display panel is located (paragraph 73); a second adhesive layer (150) disposed on a side of the polarizer away from the display panel (paragraph 67); and a cover plate (20) disposed on a side of the polarizer away from the display panel (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 41-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wang in view of Woo with that of Lee in order to provide necessary elements for forming the display module.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a display device (100), comprising: the display module according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 and paragraph 32). Wang in view of Woo does not further teach a driving chip electrically connected to the display panel in the display module. Lee teaches a display device, comprising a display module (10) and a driving chip (160) electrically connected to a display panel (100) in the display module for operating the display panel (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 153-158). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wang in view of Woo with that of Lee in order to operate the display panel.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the display panel (100) includes a first region (FP), a second region (PAD) and a bending region (BND) located between the first region and the second region (Fig. 2 and paragraph 65); the second region of the display panel is bent to a side of the support backplane away from the display panel (Fig. 2); the second region of the display panel is electrically connected to the driving chip (Fig. 2 and paragraph 153).
While Lee does not explicitly teach an adhesive tape is disposed between the support backplane and the second region of the display panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adhesive tape/film between the support backplane (220) and the second region of the display panel (PAD of 100) in order to readily attach the support backplane and the second region of the display panel together.
Regarding claims 16-20, Lee teaches further comprising a printed circuit board (500) disposed on a bottom side of the support backplane away from the display panel (Fig. 2 and paragraph 72); wherein the printed circuit board is electrically connected to the display panel through a chip on film (PAD of 100 as a form of a chip on film structure), and the driving chip is disposed on the printed circuit board (Fig. 2).
Wang in view of Woo and Lee does not explicitly teach that the support backplane (Lee, 220) is connected to the printed circuit board (Lee, 500) through a buffer connection member comprising a metallic pillar and a metallic bracket with the claimed dimensions (claims 16-20). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the buffer connection member such as a connector having a metallic pillar and a metallic bracket in a desired size/dimension in order to securely connect the printed circuit board and the support backplane for the display device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new/different ground of rejection with the previously cited prior arts Wang (US 2024/0172542 A1) and Woo et al. (US 2021/0176872 A1) as set forth above in this Office Action.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights