DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to a Preliminary Amendment filed on 11/14/2023.
Currently, claims 1-20 are examined as below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/13/2024. The IDS has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Display Module Having Narrower Overall Bezel and Larger Screen-to-Body Ratio and Display Device
(Clean Version) Display Module Having Narrower Overall Bezel and Larger Screen-to-Body Ratio and Display Device
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the orthographic projection of the non-display region” in line 7 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
(2) The limitation “the orthographic projection of the non-display region” in line 10 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 16 is indefinite, because the limitation “the part of the display region” is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0215976 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Choi in Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 teaches a display module (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 53, display device), comprising:
a protective cover plate CW (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 55, cover window CW) and a flexible display panel DP (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 58, display panel DP is a flexible display panel);
wherein the protective cover plate CW comprises a body portion CWbd (Annotated Fig. 2) in a shape of a circular plate CW (Fig. 1 & ¶ 107) and a bent portion CWbn (Annotated Fig. 2) disposed around the body portion CWbd, the bent portion CWbn being fixedly connected to an edge of the body portion CWbd (Annotated Fig. 2); and
a light exit side (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 105, front (e.g., display) surface) of the flexible display panel DP faces the protective cover plate CW (Figs. 1-2), and the flexible display panel DP comprises a first panel portion PP1 (Annotated Fig. 2) attached to the body portion CWbd and a second panel portion PP2 (Annotated Fig. 2) disposed around the first panel portion PP1, an orthographic projection of the second panel portion PP2 on the protective cover plate CW being within the bent portion CWbn (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Choi in Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 further teaches a boundary of an orthographic projection of the first panel portion PP1 on the protective cover plate CW is coincident with a boundary of the body portion CWbd (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 2 further teaches both the bent portion CWbn and the second panel portion PP2 are annular (Fig. 1 & Annotated Fig. 2, the plate CW including portion CWbn and panel DP including PP2 are both annular).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in Annotated Fig. 2 further teaches at least a part of the second panel portion PP2 is attached to the bent portion CWbn (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 further teaches the second panel portion PP2 comprises a panel bending portion PBP (Annotated Fig. 2), and the flexible display panel DP further comprises a third panel portion PP3 (Annotated Fig. 2) fixedly connected to a side, distal from the first panel portion, PP1 of the panel bending portion PBP, the third panel portion PP3 being configured to be bonded to a drive assembly FPC (Figs. 1-2, Annotated Fig. 2 & ¶ 99-101, flexible printed circuit board FPC generates driving signal i.e., drive assembly).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 further teaches the bent portion CWbn comprises a first sub-bent portion sbn1 (Annotated Fig. 2) and a second sub-bent portion sbn2 (Annotated Fig. 2), an extending direction of an arc surface, proximal to the flexible display panel DP, of the first sub-bent portion sbn1 being curved (Annotated Fig. 2, arc surface of the portion sbn1 extends in a curved direction), and an extending direction D1 (Annotated Fig. 2) of an arc surface, proximal to the flexible display panel DP, of the second sub-bent portion sbn2 being straight (Annotated Fig. 2);
wherein an orthographic projection of the panel bending portion PBP of the second panel portion PP2 on the protective cover plate CW is at least within the second sub-bent portion sbn2 (Annotated Fig. 2), and orthographic projections of other portions of the second panel portion PP2 on the protective cover plate CW are at least within the first sub-bent portion sbn1 (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding independent claim 19, Choi in Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 2 teaches a display device (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 53, display device), comprising:
a power supply assembly (Fig. 1 & ¶ 92, non-display area NDA includes conductive signal lines through which power signals are supplied to the display area DA. In other words, the area NDA includes power signal lines, which would connect to a power supply assembly) and a display module (Figs. 1-2), wherein the power supply assembly is configured to supply power to the display module (Fig. 1 & ¶ 92), and the display module comprises:
a protective cover plate CW (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 55, cover window CW) and a flexible display panel DP (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 58, display panel DP is a flexible display panel);
wherein the protective cover plate CW comprises a body portion CWbd (Annotated Fig. 2) in a shape of a circular plate CW (Fig. 1 & ¶ 107) and a bent portion CWbn (Annotated Fig. 2) disposed around the body portion CWbd, the bent portion CWbn being fixedly connected to an edge of the body portion CWbd (Annotated Fig. 2); and
a light exit side (Figs. 1-2 & ¶ 105, front (e.g., display) surface) of the flexible display panel DP faces the protective cover plate CW (Figs. 1-2), and the flexible display panel DP comprises a first panel portion PP1 (Annotated Fig. 2) attached to the body portion CWbd and a second panel portion PP2 (Annotated Fig. 2) disposed around the first panel portion PP1, an orthographic projection of the second panel portion PP2 on the protective cover plate CW being within the bent portion CWbn (Annotated Fig. 2).
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 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.
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 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Choi.
PNG
media_image3.png
432
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Choi in Annotated Figs. 2 and 11 further teaches a surface, distal from the body portion CWbd, of the first sub-bent portion sbn1 is a first table surface tb1 (Annotated Fig. 11), and a surface, distal from the body portion CWbd, of the second sub-bent portion sbn2 is a second table surface tb2 (Annotated Fig. 11), the first table surface tb1 being coplanar with the second table surface tb2 (Annotated Fig. 11).
Choi does not disclose a width of the first table surface being smaller than a width of the second table surface.
However, Choi teaches a general condition in which the first table surface tb1 has a width and the second table surface tb2 has a width (Annotated Fig. 11).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Choi teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a width of the first table surface being smaller than a width of the second table surface produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Choi renders claim 7 obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Choi does not explicitly disclose a width of the second panel portion ranges from 0.1 mm to 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the width 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
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 8, wherein the width of the second table surface gradually decreases in a direction from center to ends of the second table surface.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9, wherein the bent portion further comprises a transition portion disposed between the first sub-bent portion and the second sub-bent portion; wherein an arc surface, proximal to the flexible display panel, of the transition portion is tangential to the arc surface, proximal to the flexible display panel, of the first sub-bent portion and tangential to the arc surface, proximal to the flexible display panel, of the second sub-bent portion.
Claim 10 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 10, wherein an avoidance hole is defined in a side, facing the panel bending portion, of the second sub-bent portion.
Claim 12 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 16, wherein the protective cover plate comprises a central light-transmitting region and an edge shading region at a periphery of the central light-transmitting region, at least a part of the edge shading region being within the bent portion; and the display module further comprises a light-absorbent ink layer on a side, proximal to the flexible display panel, of the protective cover plate, the light-absorbent ink layer being within the edge shading region.
Claims 13-14 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 12.
Claim 17 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 17, wherein the protective cover plate comprises a first mounting surface and a second mounting surface perpendicular to the first mounting surface; wherein the first mounting surface is a surface, distal from the body portion, of the bent portion, and the second mounting surface is a side surface, distal from the flexible display panel, of the protective cover plate in a direction of a display surface of the flexible display panel; wherein both the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface are configured for mounting to a housing.
Claim 18 would be allowable, because claim 18 depends from the allowable claim 17.
Claim 20 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 20, wherein an annular mounting groove is defined in the housing, and the mounting groove comprises a bottom surface for connection to the first mounting surface and a side surface for connection to the second mounting surface.
Claims 15-16 are rejected.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable, because claim 15 depends from the allowable claim 12.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because claim 16 depends from the allowable claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0060092 A1 to Kim
CN 214541382 U to Peng et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817