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 .
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2020/0020759, “Song”) in view of Seo et al. (US 2016/0338219, “Seo”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0081274, “Choi”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14, Song teaches a display panel comprising a first flexible printed circuit board connected to the display panel (e.g., see Fig 1, display 200 connected to printed circuit board M_FPC, [0068]). Song teaches that the circuit board may have a first adhesive layer (see, e.g., Figs. 7, 14, layer 702), a base layer (layer 701, tape base layer, may be, e.g., PET, [0093] and may correspond to the claimed support layer), a further adhesive layer (e.g., Fig. 7, 14 layer 703, [0069], corresponding to adhesive layer 1 between the cover and support layers), and an underlying panel sheet layer (Fig. 7, 14, layers 110, 111, 120, [0076], [0077], corresponding to claimed cover layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Song fails to specifically teach that the adhesive layer corresponding to the claimed second adhesive layer (i.e., that attaching the flexible printed circuit board to the support layer) comprises first and second portions. In the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0010] – [0012]), Seo teaches to include an adhesive layer having multiple adhesive sections, particularly in folding and non-folding sections, and wherein the different adhesive portions should have different adhesive forces (see [0048] – [0052] in order to balance the need to maintains adhesion between the layers with the ability to reduce stress in the layer ([0051], [0052]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have included such different sections having different adhesive forces in the adhesive layer of Song that is between the support layer and the printed circuit board in order to balance the need to maintains adhesion between the layers with the ability to reduce stress in the layer (Seo, [0051], [0052]). Alternately, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0005]), Choi also teaches to include an adhesive layer having multiple adhesive sections and each having different adhesive forces to different sublayer components in order to be applied first to release layers and then to selectively peel the release layers and apply the adhesive to another element ([0087, [0106] – [0111], [0008] – [0020]) and wherein the adhesive components may have different surface attachment sizes (Choi, e.g., [0008], [0087], [0106] – [0111], [0202], [0203]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have included such different sections having different adhesive forces in the adhesive layer of Song in order apply those layers selectively to other device elements ([Choi, e.g., 0087, [0106] – [0111], [0008] – [0020]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, while modified Song fails to specifically teach the shape or direction of the adhesive with respect to a peeling direction, Choi teaches that the areas of the first or second portion may be different sizes (see, Choi e.g., see Fig. 8, showing an adhesive sheet having different sized portions) and it therefore would have been obvious to have changed the shape or peeling orientation of the adhesive layer in order to, for example, facilitate bending or different components or shapes in the device itself ([0101] – [0103]; additionally see Song, Fig. 13, [0133] wherein the second adhesive layer may include a release layer that is peeled off). Additionally, with regard to the sizing or shape of the individual adhesive layers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Song fails to specifically teach the adhesive forces of the adhesives corresponding to the claimed first and second portions of the second adhesive layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices and their construction elements (e.g., [0003] – [0005]),Choi teaches to adjust the adhesive strength of different components in order to suitably separate the components from attached release liners (see [0115] – [0120]). Choi teaches generally that one should have an adhesive force on the range of from 100 to 300 gf/25 mm and another may be on the range of 700 gf/25 mm ([0116]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the adhesive forces of the different adhesives of Song to within about the ranges described by Choi in order to suitably separate the components from attached release liners (see [0115] – [0120]). The Examiner notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Song fails to specifically teach the adhesive force of the first adhesive layer, however Seo teaches to adjust an adhesive portion to have an adhesive force of greater than 1000 gf/mm in order to prevent delamination even upon bending ([0060]) and thus it would have been obvious to have adjusted an adhesive for a non-peeling layer, for example, to within this range.
Regarding claim 7, modified Song additionally teaches that the first PCB may include a compression portion bonded to the display panel (see, e.g., Fig. 3, display panel 200 connected to coupling layer 130, [0075], [0081], coupling layer may be polymeric), a bending portion that may be bent while surrounding an edge of the display panel (e.g., Fig. 27, M_FPC may be bent around display 200, [0064]), and may include a region in which a wire is disposed and a component (e.g., [0063] -[0066], Figs. 1, 3, main FPC connected to D_IC and PCB via BR, [0053], [0065], [0066], [0068]) and wherein the support layer may be attached to the wire region (e.g., Fig. 1, 3BR region attached to 700).
Regarding claim 8, Song additionally teaches that the protective film need not entirely cover the component region (see, e.g., Figs 2, and 1-3 generally, wherein the PCB is not completely covered by layer 701).
Regarding claim 9, Song additionally teaches that the support layer and adhesive layers each have a similar planar shape (see, Fig. 3, layers 700) and the cover layer completely covers the support layer (see underlying panel sheet layer, Fig. 7, layers 110, 111, 120, [0076], [0077], corresponding to claimed cover layer and covering base tape layer 701). Additionally, because Choi teaches that the areas of the first or second portion of adhesive layers may be different sizes (see, Choi e.g., see Fig. 8, showing an adhesive sheet having different sized portions) and it would have been obvious to have changed the shape or arrangement of the various layers within the display device in order to, for example, facilitate bending or different components or shapes in the device itself ([0101] – [0103]; additionally see Song, Fig. 13, [0133] wherein the second adhesive layer may include a release layer that is peeled off). Additionally, with regard to the sizing or shape of the individual layers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Son additionally teaches to include an additional printed circuit board and that this may be attached to the protective film and electrically connected to the first circuit board (e.g., Song, Fig. 3, PCB, [0071], attached via underlying layers to layers 700, 100).
Regarding claim 12, Song additionally teaches that the cover includes a portion that does not overlap the first and second circuit boards (see, e.g., Figs. 2 and 3, wherein layer 100 may extend beyond the circuit board elements). While Song fails to specifically teach that the layer corresponding to the support layer does not include a portion that does not overlap the first and second circuit boards in plan view, as it is shown to be adhered specifically to these elements it would have been obvious not to have included extraneous portions that do not overlap the printed circuitry (see, e.g., Fig. 3). Additionally, because Choi teaches that the areas of the first or second portion of adhesive layers may be different sizes (see, Choi e.g., see Fig. 8, showing an adhesive sheet having different sized portions) and it would have been obvious to have changed the shape or arrangement of the various layers within the display device in order to, for example, facilitate bending or different components or shapes in the device itself ([0101] – [0103]; additionally see Song, Fig. 13, [0133] wherein the second adhesive layer may include a release layer that is peeled off). Additionally, with regard to the sizing or shape of the individual layers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Song fails to specifically teach that the display panel includes a bending portion separating two flat portions but such a construction is well-known in the art. For example, Seo teaches such a construction having a folding area and non-folding areas in order to facilitate bending of the device and teaches generally that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have selected an appropriate placement for the components of these devices among various areas in the device as a conventional manner of effectively including the components ([0006] – [0008], [0031]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a bending area in the device of Song in order to facilitate bending and flexibility in the device (Seo, e.g., [0006] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, Song teaches a display panel comprising a first flexible printed circuit board connected to the display panel (e.g., see Fig 1, display 200 connected to printed circuit board M_FPC, [0068]). Song teaches that the circuit board may have a first adhesive layer (see, e.g., Fig. 7, layer 702), a base layer (layer 701, tape base layer, may be, e.g., PET, [0093] and may correspond to the claimed support layer), a further adhesive layer (e.g., Fig. 7 layer 703, [0069], corresponding to adhesive layer 1 between the cover and support layers), and an underlying panel sheet layer (Fig. 7, layers 110, 111, 120, [0076], [0077], corresponding to claimed cover layer). Song additionally teaches a second printed circuit board attached to the first printed circuit board (Fig. 14, PCB attached to M_FPC). Song fails to specifically teach that the adhesive layer corresponding to the claimed second adhesive layer (i.e., that attaching the flexible printed circuit board to the support layer) comprises first and second portions. In the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0010] – [0012]), Seo teaches to include an adhesive layer having multiple adhesive sections, particularly in folding and non-folding sections, and wherein the different adhesive portions should have different adhesive forces (see [0048] – [0052] in order to balance the need to maintains adhesion between the layers with the ability to reduce stress in the layer ([0051], [0052]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have included such different sections having different adhesive forces in the adhesive layer of Song that is between the support layer and the printed circuit board in order to balance the need to maintains adhesion between the layers with the ability to reduce stress in the layer (Seo, [0051], [0052]). Alternately, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0005]), Choi also teaches to include an adhesive layer having multiple adhesive sections and each having different adhesive forces to different sublayer components in order to be applied first to release layers and then to selectively peel the release layers and apply the adhesive to another element ([0087, [0106] – [0111], [0008] – [0020]) and wherein the adhesive components may have different surface attachment sizes (Choi, e.g., [0008], [0087], [0106] – [0111], [0202], [0203]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have included such different sections having different adhesive forces in the adhesive layer of Song in order apply those layers selectively to other device elements ([Choi, e.g., 0087, [0106] – [0111], [0008] – [0020]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, while modified Song fails to specifically teach the shape or direction of the adhesive with respect to a peeling direction, Choi teaches that the areas of the first or second portion may be different sizes (see, Choi e.g., see Fig. 8, showing an adhesive sheet having different sized portions) and it therefore would have been obvious to have changed the shape or peeling orientation of the adhesive layer in order to, for example, facilitate bending or different components or shapes in the device itself ([0101] – [0103]; additionally see Song, Fig. 13, [0133] wherein the second adhesive layer may include a release layer that is peeled off). Additionally, with regard to the sizing or shape of the individual adhesive layers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Song fails to specifically teach the adhesive forces of the adhesives corresponding to the claimed first and second portions of the second adhesive layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices and their construction elements (e.g., [0003] – [0005]),Choi teaches to adjust the adhesive strength of different components in order to suitably separate the components from attached release liners (see [0115] – [0120]). Choi teaches generally that one should have an adhesive force on the range of from 100 to 300 gf/25 mm and another may be on the range of 700 gf/25 mm ([0116]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the adhesive forces of the different adhesives of Song to within about the ranges described by Choi in order to suitably separate the components from attached release liners (see [0115] – [0120]). The Examiner notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, modified Song additionally teaches that the first PCB may include a compression portion bonded to the display panel (see, e.g., Fig. 3, display panel 200 connected to coupling layer 130, [0075], [0081], coupling layer may be polymeric), a bending portion that may be bent while surrounding an edge of the display panel (e.g., Fig. 27, M_FPC may be bent around display 200, [0064]), and may include a region in which a wire is disposed and a component (e.g., [0063] -[0066], Figs. 1, 3, main FPC connected to D_IC and PCB via BR, [0053], [0065], [0066], [0068]) and wherein the support layer may be attached to the wire region (e.g., Fig. 1, 3BR region attached to 700).
Regarding claim 20, Song additionally teaches that the support layer and adhesive layers each have a similar planar shape (see, Fig. 3, layers 700) and the cover layer completely covers the support layer (see underlying panel sheet layer, Fig. 7, layers 110, 111, 120, [0076], [0077], corresponding to claimed cover layer and covering base tape layer 701). Additionally, because Choi teaches that the areas of the first or second portion of adhesive layers may be different sizes (see, Choi e.g., see Fig. 8, showing an adhesive sheet having different sized portions) and it would have been obvious to have changed the shape or arrangement of the various layers within the display device in order to, for example, facilitate bending or different components or shapes in the device itself ([0101] – [0103]; additionally see Song, Fig. 13, [0133] wherein the second adhesive layer may include a release layer that is peeled off). Additionally, with regard to the sizing or shape of the individual layers, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782