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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0301193 A1~ hereinafter “LEE”) of record in view of Chien et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0292860 A1~hereinafter “Chien”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1-23) a display apparatus (1), comprising: a first display module (TD), comprising: a substrate (100, BLU), having a display surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface (see at least figs. 2-23), wherein the side surface is connected between the display surface and the bottom surface opposite to each other (see at least figs. 8, 15, 23); an encapsulation layer (TC; BC; 300), disposed on the display surface; and a sealant (AM2), comprising a connection part, a bottom part, and an extension part (best seen in at least figs. 8, 13, 15, 23), wherein the connection part has two ends opposite to each other and a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (see at least figs. 8, 15, 23), the bottom part and the extension part are respectively located at the two opposite ends and are respectively extended from the first surface and the second surface in directions away from each other (best seen in at least figs. 8, 13, 15 and 23), the bottom part contacts the bottom surface, the first surface contacts the side surface, the extension part has an outer surface (see at least figs. 8, 13, 15 and 23), the encapsulation layer (TC; BC; 300) contacts the connection part and the extension part and is coplanar with the outer surface (see at least figs. 8, 13, 15 and 23), and a horizontal distance between the outer surface and the second surface is greater than 0 (as evident by at least figs. 8, 13, 15 and 23).
LEE does not expressly disclose the extension part outer surface of the sealant overlaps the side surface along a normal direction of the side surface.
Chien in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 5; [0031]) an extension part (210) of the sealant (510) overlaps the side surface along a normal direction of the side surface (see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display panel of LEE with the sealant extension part of Chien, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, LEE discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 23) a second display module spliced to the first display module (see at least figs. 1 and 23), the second display module comprising: a substrate (100, BLU), having a display surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface, wherein the side surface is connected between the display surface and the bottom surface opposite to each other (see at least fig. 23); an encapsulation layer (TC; BC; 300), disposed on the display surface of the substrate of the second display module (see at least fig. 23); and a sealant (AM1), comprising a connection part, a bottom part, and an extension part (see fig. 23), wherein the connection part has two ends opposite to each other and a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (see at least fig. 23), the bottom part and the extension part are respectively located at the two opposite ends and are respectively extended from the first surface and the second surface in directions away from each other (see at least fig. 23), the bottom part contacts the bottom surface, the first surface contacts the side surface, the extension part has an outer surface (see at least fig. 23), the encapsulation layer (TC; BC; 300) contacts the connection part and the extension part and is coplanar with the outer surface (see fig. 23), and a horizontal distance between the outer surface and the second surface is greater than 0 (as evident by at least fig. 23).
Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1 and 23) the outer surface of the first display module contacts the outer surface of the second display module.
Regarding claim 4, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1 and 23) the first display module further comprises an optical film (310), the optical film (110; 310) is disposed on one side of the encapsulation layer (300, TC) opposite to the substrate (100; BLU), and the optical film (110; 310) and the outer surface are coplanar (see at least fig. 23).
Regarding claim 5, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1 and 23) the optical film (110; 310) and the outer surface of the extension part have consecutive cut marks.
Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses all the claimed limitations except for a sum of a thickness of the extension part, a thickness of the encapsulation layer, and a thickness of the optical film is less than or equal to 450 micrometers.
However, LEE discloses (in at least figs. 1-23) the display device comprises sealant (AM1, AM2) comprises an extension part, an encapsulation layer (TC, BC, 300) and optical film (110, 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the device of LEE wherein a sum of a thickness of the extension part, a thickness of the encapsulation layer, and a thickness of the optical film is less than or equal to 450 micrometers, since it has been held a mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses (in at least figs. 8, 13, 15 and 23) the extension part (i.e. the extension part of the sealant AM1, AM2) has a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other, the outer surface is connected between the third surface and the fourth surface, the third surface contacts the encapsulation layer (see at least figs. 8 and 23), but is silent about a vertical distance between the fourth surface and the display surface is less than or equal to 1/2 times a thickness of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to forming the extension part of LEE with a vertical distance between the fourth surface and the display surface less than or equal to ½ times a thickness of the substrate, since it has been held a mere change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, LEE discloses (in at least figs. 8, 15 and 23) the extension part has a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other, the outer surface is connected between the third surface and the fourth surface (see at least figs. 8, 15 and 23), the third surface contacts the encapsulation layer (300), but is silent about the fourth surface has a plurality of grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contemplate forming the fourth surface of the extension part of LEE with a plurality of grooves in order to facilitate accurate cutting process.
Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1-23) a vertical distance between the bottom part and the bottom surface is greater than 0.
Regarding claim 10, LEE discloses (in at least fig. 1-23) the connection part and the extension part are collectively shaped as a letter L.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875