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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 12/22/2025, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Cancellation of claim(s) 9 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11 are pending in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1-4 are withdrawn from consideration due to being directed to a non-elected invention
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/16/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by Applicant's amendment(s).
America Invents Act
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 5-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shin (WO 2021-230509 A1) as previously cited by Examiner in view of Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0235075 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Shin teaches a display apparatus comprising: at least one display panel, wherein each of the at least one display panel comprises: a driving backplane (40, “substrate,” ¶ [0070]-¶ [0080]; see at least Fig. 8); a plurality of light-emitting elements (50, LEDs) disposed on the driving backplane (40) and are electrically connected (via 47) to the driving backplane (40); an encapsulation layer (130, “an adhesive layer,” ¶ [0155]) disposed on the driving backplane (40) and covering the light-emitting elements (50), wherein the encapsulation layer (130) comprises a protruding portion (101A, extending beyond 40) extending beyond the driving backplane (40); and a fixing glue (200, “side member” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “the adhesion between the cover and the substrate can be strengthened by the side member,” ¶ [0211]) disposed between the protruding portion (101A, extending beyond 40) of the encapsulation layer (130) and a side wall of the driving backplane (40). Shin is silent regarding the light transmittance of the fixing glue is higher than the light transmittance of the encapsulation layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsai et al., teaches a display device with LEDs, wherein the transmittance of an encapsulation layer (400, encapsulant layer, ¶ [0038]) may be significantly low (via black pigment or carbon black, ¶ [0038]) in order to enhance contrast ratio (¶ [0002]).
It should be noted that the superimposition of Shin with Tsai et al., would result in the modified encapsulation layer being intrinsically lower in transmittance than the fixing glue of Shin.
It should also be noted that Tsai et al., teaches that an encapsulation layer is provided as either fully transparent (glass) or as having low light transmittance (“in other embodiments, the gray encapsulant layer 400 may be replaced by a transparent encapsulant layer,” ¶ [0040]), thus exemplifying recognized equivalent materials of the encapsulation layer in the art.
In light of this teaching, Examiner reasonably contemplates it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the encapsulation layer of Shin as highly light absorbing instead of as more transparent, since the selection of any of these known equivalents would be considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Tsai's teaching.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the encapsulation layer, as disclosed by Tsai et al., in the device of Shin in order to enhance contrast ratio by allowing greater absorption of light (¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 6, Shin as modified by Tsai et al., teaches the display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein adjacent two sides of the fixing glue (200) directly connect the protruding portion (101A, extending beyond 40) of the encapsulation layer (130) and the side wall of the driving backplane (40) respectively.
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 7, Shin as modified by Tsai et al., teaches the display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the side wall of the driving backplane (40) comprises a first portion (45) and a second portion (49), the second portion (49) of the side wall is connected between the protruding portion (101A, extending beyond 40) of the encapsulation layer (130) and the first portion (45) of the side wall, the second portion (49) of the side wall is inclined with respect to the first portion (45) of the side wall, and the fixing glue (200) is filled into a gap between the second portion (49) of the side wall and the protruding portion (101A, extending beyond 40) of the encapsulation layer (130).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, Shin as modified by Tsai et al., teaches the display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the encapsulation layer (130) has a boundary with the fixing glue (200).
Motivation to combine would be the same as stated above.
Regarding Claim 10, Shin teaches the display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one display panel is a plurality of display panels (30A, 30E), and the display apparatus further comprises: a sealant (120), wherein the display panels are arranged side by side, there is a gap between the display panels (30A, 30E), and the sealant (120) is filled at least in the gap.
Regarding Claim 11, Shin teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of Young's modulus of the fixing glue is greater than Young's modulus of the sealant.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device such that Young's modulus of the fixing glue (200) is greater than Young's modulus of the sealant (120), since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing Young's modulus of the fixing glue (200) to be greater than Young's modulus of the sealant (120) in order to improve the mechanical and structural stability of the device, thereby improving longevity overall.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art below is made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Espacenet Patent Search Complete (Global Dossier)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment(s) necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection, via the light transmittance of the fixing glue being “higher” than the light transmittance of the encapsulation layer presented in this Office action, therefore:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R. Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875