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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in Fig. 4, the x-axis is labeled "Display Unit Fixing Members", but it is unclear from the drawing alone what property of said members the x-axis values represent; it is assumed based on the text of the specification that this represents a warpage of the display unit fixing members. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Tang, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Tang, reproduced with annotation added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image3.png
420
795
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ji, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image4.png
443
709
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Ji, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image5.png
399
736
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Ji, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et. al., Pub. No. 2019/0131381, hereafter referred to as Tang, in view of Ji et. al., Pub. No. 2023/0092950, hereafter referred to as Ji.
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches “A display device, comprising: a plurality of display units, arranged to function as a display surface of the display device” (Tang [0035]; Fig. 1, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, display panels 10), “wherein a splicing area exists between two adjacent display units of the display units” (Tang [0036]; also see Fig. 1), and “a plurality of first adhering members, disposed on the splicing area” (Tang Fig. 9, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, conductive elements P; also see [0045]: “The conductive element P is anisotropic conductive adhesive…”), “wherein two ends of a corresponding first adhering member of the first adhering members respectively contact with the two adjacent display units” (Tang Fig. 9, conductive elements P, first bound parts B1), but does not teach “a plurality of display unit fixing members, disposed on the display units” and “a second adhering member, disposed between the corresponding first adhering member and the display unit fixing members, wherein a portion of the second adhering member overlaps with the corresponding first adhering member.”
Ji, on the other hand, does teach “a plurality of display unit fixing members” (Ji [0060-0061]; Fig. 6, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, frame-shaped members 310), “disposed on the display units” (Ji [0060-0061]; Fig. 6, subpanels 101) and “a second adhering member” (Ji Fig. 2, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, protrusions 3121; also see [0034]: “In a possible embodiment of the present disclosure, an adhesive layer, such as a foam double-sided adhesive or rubber, is provided on the support face formed by the plurality of protrusions 3121…”). The disclosure of Ji further teaches that the frame-shaped members 310 in Fig. 6 are one of the connection frame structures 300 shown in Figs. 2-5 (Ji [0064]). Therefore, one of these four connection frame structures can be used in each of the locations of the frame-shaped members 310 in Fig. 6, positioned so that the protrusions 3121 contact the subpanels 101, similar to the arrangement shown in Fig. 1, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner (also see Ji [0060]).
The frame structures with adhesives of Ji can be incorporated into the apparatus of Wang by adhering the frame structures to the backs of the display panels of Wang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to attach the frame structures of Ji to the backs of the display panels of Wang because the frame structures would provide extra support for the display panels, and is a simple combination of elements of the disclosures of Tang and Ji. The combined device teaches the limitation, “a second adhering member, disposed between the corresponding first adhering member and the display unit fixing members, wherein a portion of the second adhering member overlaps with the corresponding first adhering member.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji, in further view of 3M, "3M Anisotropic Conductive Adhesive 5363", https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/407590O/3m-tm-anisotropic-conductive-film-5363.pdf, hereafter referred to as 3M Anisotropic.
The combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a material of the first adhering members comprises a plastic polymer or a hybrid film of a plastic polymer.” The combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 does, however, teach that the adhering members may be an anisotropic conductive adhesive (Tang [0045]).
3M Anisotropic, on the other hand, anticipates “wherein a material of the first adhering members comprises a plastic polymer or a hybrid film of a plastic polymer” by advertising an anisotropic conductive film made of polyester, which is a plastic polymer.
The polyester tape of 3M Anisotropic is implemented in the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 through its use as the conductive elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the anisotropic conductive film described by 3M Anisotropic as the first adhering members in the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because it can serve the purpose of the anisotropic conductive adhesive disclosed by Ji.
PNG
media_image6.png
761
841
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Cai, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji, in further view of Cai et. al., Pub. No. CN 114550603, hereafter referred to as Cai.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a material of the first adhering members comprises copper, aluminum or any one of an alloy thereof.”
Cai, on the other hand, anticipates “wherein a material of the first adhering members comprises copper, aluminum or any one of an alloy thereof” (Cai [0034]: “In some embodiments of this application, the tape assembly 400 includes an aluminum foil tape 410…”; Fig. 2, reproduced above with annotations added by the examiner, tape assembly 400 and aluminum foil tape 410). Furthermore, Cai teaches that the use of aluminum foil tape can provide shielding against electromagnetic interference (Cai [0034]: “Aluminum foil tape 410 can effectively shield electromagnetic interference…”).
The aluminum tape of Cai is incorporated as a substitute for the conductive elements of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute aluminum foil tape of Cai for the conductive adhesive of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because it can serve the purpose of adhering two adjacent display panels together, provides protection against electromagnetic interference, and is a simple substitution of one element for another.
PNG
media_image7.png
569
776
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Reproduction of Fig. 8 of Meidinger.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Ji, and Cai as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of N. Meidinger et. al., "Frame store PN-CCD detector for the ROSITA mission," Proc. SPIE 4851, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy, (11 March 2003), hereafter referred to as Meidinger.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a visible light transmittance of the first adhering members is less than 5%”.
Cai, on the other hand, teaches the use of aluminum foil tape as an adhesive member for bonding two display panels together (Cai [0034]; Fig. 2, tape assembly 400 and aluminum foil tape 410). Furthermore, Cai teaches that the use of aluminum foil tape can provide shielding against electromagnetic interference (Cai [0034]).
The aluminum tape of Cai is incorporated as a substitute for the conductive elements of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute aluminum foil tape of Cai for the conductive adhesive of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because it can serve the purpose of adhering two adjacent display panels together, provides protection against electromagnetic interference, and is a simple substitution of one element for another.
The combination of Tang, Ji, and Cai just described, however, does not explicitly teach “wherein a visible light transmittance of the first adhering members is less than 5%”.
Meidinger, on the other hand, teaches that even a sheet of aluminum foil 150 nm thick has negligible visible light transmittance (Meidinger Fig. 8, reproduced above; note that aluminum foil, even at a thickness of 150 nm, has a transmittance of around 10-10 at all visible wavelengths, roughly 350 nm-750 nm, which is well below 5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use first adhering members with a visible light transmittance of less than 5% in the combination of Tang, Ji, and Cai described above because aluminum tape, as taught by Cai, was known at the time to have a visible light transmittance well below 5%, as evidenced by the disclosure of Meidinger. Therefore, the combined apparatus of Tang, Ji, and Cai described above teaches “wherein a visible light transmittance of the first adhering members is less than 5%”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Ji, and Cai as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of 3M, "3M Metal Foil Tapes", https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/375981O/3m-metal-foil-tapes-brochure-6-2012-low-resolution.pdf, hereafter referred to as 3M Metal.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not explicitly teach “wherein an adhesion of the first adhering members is greater than 1 newton/cm”.
Cai, on the other hand, teaches the use of aluminum foil tape as an adhesive member for bonding two display panels together (Cai [0034]; Fig. 2, tape assembly 400 and aluminum foil tape 410). Furthermore, Cai teaches that the use of aluminum foil tape can provide shielding against electromagnetic interference (Cai [0034]).
The aluminum tape of Cai is incorporated as a substitute for the conductive elements of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute aluminum foil tape of Cai for the conductive adhesive of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because it can serve the purpose of adhering two adjacent display panels together, provides protection against electromagnetic interference, and is a simple substitution of one element for another.
The combination of Tang, Ji, and Cai just described, however, still does not explicitly teach “wherein an adhesion of the first adhering members is greater than 1 newton/cm”.
3M Metal, on the other hand, does anticipate “wherein an adhesion of the first adhering members is greater than 1 newton/cm” (3M Metal p. 3; for example, product number 3369 is an aluminum tape with an adhesion of 3.8 N/cm, which is the lowest adhesion of any of the tapes listed in the table; see also MPEP 2131.03 I: ““If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).”).
The aluminum tapes of 3M Metal may be implemented in the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 through the usage of one of said tapes as the first adhering member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a first adhering member with an adhesion greater than 1 N/cm as taught by 3M Metal in the combination of Tang, Ji, and Cai described above because the tapes described by 3M Metal can serve the purpose of the aluminum foil tape taught by Cai. The combined apparatus of Tang, Ji, Cai, and 3M Metal teaches “wherein an adhesion of the first adhering members is greater than 1 newton/cm”.
PNG
media_image8.png
788
726
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Li, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
PNG
media_image9.png
476
601
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Part of Fig. 4 of Li, reproduced with annotation added by the examiner.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji in further view of Li et. al., Pub. No. US 2023/0300994, hereafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein a ratio of a total length of the first adhering members covering the splicing area to a total length of the splicing area is greater than 0.5.”
Li, on the other hand, does teach “wherein a ratio of a total length of the first adhering members” (Li [0081]; Fig. 4, first adhesive layer 2021) “covering the splicing area” (Li [0081]; Fig. 4, sub-display panels 201, gaps 03, Fig. 4, first adhesive layer 2021) “to a total length of the splicing area is greater than 0.5” (Li Fig. 4; note that the first adhesive layer 2021 covers the entire splicing area).
The first adhesive layer of Li can be incorporated into the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 as glue disposed on the splicing area, with the anisotropic conductive adhesive then disposed on top of the glue. The first adhering members in this combination comprise glue and anisotropic conductive adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to introduce the glue of Li into the splicing area of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because the glue would provide further support for the plurality of display panels and is a simple combination of elements from Tang, Ji, and Li.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tang, Ji, and Li described in the discussion of claim 6 further teaches “The display device according to claim 1, wherein the display units further comprise four display units arranged in a 2*2 array” (Li [0071]; Fig. 4, sub-display panels 201), “the first adhering members further comprise another first adhering member disposed at a geometric center of the four display units” (Li Fig. 4, first adhesive layer 2021), “and the another first adhering member contacts each of the four display units” (Li Fig. 4, first adhesive layer 2021).
PNG
media_image10.png
571
792
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Choi, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji, in further view of Choi et. al., Pub. No. US 2020/0194712, hereafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein another portion of the second adhering member does not overlap with the display unit fixing members.”
Choi, on the other hand, does teach “wherein another portion of the… adhering member does not overlap with the display unit fixing members” (Choi [0059] and [0063]; Fig. 1, upper delamination knob 18a and lower delamination knob 19a). Furthermore, Choi teaches that the purpose of these delamination knobs is to make it easier to remove the delamination films 18 and 19 (Choi [0059] and [0063]: “The upper delamination knob 18a can serve as a knob that is configured to peel off the upper delamination film 18 from the heat radiation member 10 for a flexible display. … The lower delamination knob 19a can serve as a knob configured to peel off the lower delamination film 19 from the heat radiation member 10 for a flexible display.”).
The delamination knobs of Choi are implemented as extensions of the foam adhesive tapes of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 (Ji [0034]; Fig. 2, protrusions 3121) such that portions of the tapes do not overlap any portion of the frames 300.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include extensions of the foam adhesive tapes of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 such that portions of the tapes do not overlap any portion of the frames because these extensions would make it easier to remove the tapes if there is a need to disassemble the apparatus. The combination of Tang, Ji, and Choi teaches “wherein another portion of the second adhering member does not overlap with the display unit fixing members.”
PNG
media_image11.png
411
771
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Tanaka, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji in further view of Tanaka et. al., Pub. No. US 2018/0120498, hereafter referred to as Tanaka.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein another portion of the second adhering member contacts outer edges of the display unit fixing members.”
Tanaka, on the other hand, does teach “wherein another portion of the second adhering member” (Tanaka Fig. 6, adhesive member 4) “contacts outer edges of the display unit fixing members” (Tanaka Fig. 6, housing 37).
The shape of the adhesive member of Tanaka is implemented as extensions of the foam adhesive tapes of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 that are folded over the edges of the protrusions of Ji.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add extensions to the foam adhesive tapes as taught by Tanaka to the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 and fold them over the edges of the protrusions because doing so would more securely adhere the display panels to the frames, making them less likely to fall off.
PNG
media_image12.png
683
727
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Lee, reproduced with annotations added by the examiner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji, in further view of Lee et. al., Pub. No. US 2023/0315376, hereafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not teach “wherein the display units comprise a plurality of light emitting components, wherein each of the light emitting components is one of a light emitting diode (LED), a micro LED or an organic LED.”
Lee, on the other hand, does teach “wherein the display units” (Lee [0059-0060]; Fig. 1, display units 10) “comprise a plurality of light emitting components” (Lee [0059-0060], Fig. 1, emission areas LA), “wherein each of the light emitting components is one of a light emitting diode (LED), a micro LED or an organic LED” (Lee [0059]: “Each of the plurality of pixels may include an organic light emitting diode (LED) including an organic light emitting layer… , a micro LED, or an inorganic LED including an inorganic semiconductor.”).
The display units of Lee are incorporated as the subpanels of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to substitute the display panels of Lee into the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because they can serve the same purpose of providing a visual display as those of the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 and it would be a simple substitution of one type of display panel for another.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang and Ji in further view of Cascino, US Pat. No. 4,981,755, hereafter referred to as Cascino.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 teaches “The display device according to claim 1”, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the second adhering member is detachable”. However, the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 does disclose foam adhesive tape as a possible material for the second adhering member (Ji [0034]).
Cascino, on the other hand, teaches a foam tape that “does not promote cracking of the plastic as well as not marring the plastic surface when the foam is removed” (Cascino col. 1, lines 42-44). Most importantly, Cascino also teaches that the foam tape disclosed therein is removable. It is assumed here that the second adhering member may be considered detachable even if it requires some amount of force to detach it, as would be the case with adhesive tape.
The double-sided foam tape of Cascino can be incorporated into the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 through the use of said tape as the second adhering member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have used the double-sided foam tape of Cascino as the second adhering member in the combination of Tang and Ji described in the discussion of claim 1 because it would cause less damage to the housing of the display panels of the combination of Tang and Ji when removed and it would be a simple substitution of one element for another. The combination of Tang, Ji, and Cascino teaches the limitation, “wherein the second adhering member is detachable”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT EMIL THROCKMORTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-7014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 12 PM and 1 PM - 5:30 PM ET Monday-Thursday, 7:30 AM - 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM - 4:30 PM ET Friday.
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, STEVEN H LOKE can be reached at (571) 272-1657. 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.
/R.E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818