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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 April 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A CIRCUIT BOARD is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata JP2009086120 in view of Guo et al. CN 110880526.
PNG
media_image1.png
297
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Furuhata JP2009086120
Regarding claim 1, Furuhata in Fig. 2 and related text discloses a display device 100 comprising:
a substrate 1 including a display area 50 and a pad area 1h spaced apart from the display area 50;
a driving chip 5 disposed on the substrate, the driving chip 5 overlapping the pad area; and
a circuit board FPC 7 disposed on the substrate 1, the circuit board FPC 7 including a protrusion part 71 overlapping an end of the pad area and a body part 73 extending from the protrusion part 71 away from the pad area.
Furuhata does not expressly disclose wherein the pad area includes a plurality of second pad electrodes electrically connected to the circuit board, and wherein a lower surface of the body part closest to the substrate and a lower surface of an entirety of the protrusion part that does not overlap the plurality of second pad electrodes are exposed.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Guo et al. CN 110880526
Guo et al. in Figs. 14 and 15 (annotated above) teach a display device and a separate pad area C for electrical connection including pad electrodes 3 electrically connected to a circuit board 5. The circuit board is disposed on a substrate 1, the circuit board 5 including a protrusion part overlapping an end of the pad area C and a body part (annotated above) extending from the protrusion part away from the pad area C and a lower surface of the body part (annotated above) closest to the substrate 1 and a lower surface of an entirety of the protrusion part (annotated above) that does not overlap the plurality of pad electrodes 3 are exposed. Guo et al. further teach that space is saved to reduce the width of the bonding pad area allowing for the frame to be narrower, thereby increasing the screen size of the display panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo et al. in the display device of Furuhata for the purpose of increasing the display panel.
Regarding claim 2, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1. Guo et al. teach wherein the protrusion part (annotated above) is in direct contact with elements disposed in the pad area C, and the body part (annotated above) is not in direct contact with elements disposed in the pad area C.
Regarding claim 7, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1. Furuhata teaches wherein: the driving chip 5, Fig. 2 is spaced apart from the circuit board 7 in a first direction; and the protrusion part 60 Fig. 4 includes a first protrusion part (e.g. right side) and a second protrusion part (e.g. left side) spaced apart from the first protrusion part in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Guo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2019/0074332.
Regarding claim 3, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein: the substrate further includes a bending area disposed between the display area and the pad area; and the bending area is bendable in a thickness direction of the substrate, wherein the circuit board is disposed under the substrate when the bending area is bent.
However, Kim et al. at [0049]-[0095] and Figs. 1 and 4 teach a display device having a substrate 110 including a bending area BA [0052] disposed between the display area AA and the pad area PA[0052]; and the bending area BA is bendable in a thickness direction of the substrate 110, wherein a circuit board 130 is disposed under the substrate 110 when the bending area BA is bent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. in the display device of Furuhata and Guo et al. for the purpose of bending the display device without breaking.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Guo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu US 2023/0098663.
Regarding claim 4, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1. Furuhata teach the display device further comprising a first anisotropic conductive film 20 disposed between a plurality of pad electrodes 11, the plurality of pad electrodes overlaps the pad area and is spaced apart from each other; and the driving chip 5, the first anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of pad electrodes and the driving chip to each other. Guo et al. teach a plurality of pad electrodes 3 overlap the pad area and is spaced apart from each other.
Furuhata and Guo et al. do not expressly disclose the display device further comprising: a plurality of first pad electrodes and a plurality of second pad electrodes; a second anisotropic conductive film disposed between the plurality of second pad electrodes and the circuit board, the second anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of second pad electrodes and the circuit board to each other.
However, Lu at [0027]-[0064] and Figs. 2-4 teaches a display device including a plurality of first pad electrodes 50 disposed on a display substrate 10, the plurality of first pad electrodes 50 overlaps the pad area and is spaced apart from each other; a plurality of second pad electrodes 51 disposed on the substrate, the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 overlaps the pad area and is spaced apart from each other;
and a second anisotropic conductive film [0060] disposed between the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 and the circuit board 60, the second anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 and the circuit board 60 to each other.
In [0056], the virtual bonding pads 51 are added to the side of the bonding pads 50, some virtual gold fingers 71 are added to corresponding positions of the flexible circuit board 60, and the surfaces of the virtual bonding pads 51 and the surfaces of the virtual gold fingers 71 are in contact with each other in one-to-one correspondence, such that the contact area between the flexible circuit board 60 and the display panel 100 is increased, thereby increasing a pulling force of the flexible circuit board 60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu of first and second electrodes in the display device of Furuhata and Guo et al. for the purpose of improving the connection of the circuit board to the display substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. and further in view of Lu teach the display device of claim 4. Furuhata teaches wherein the anisotropic conductive film includes an epoxy resin (e.g. ACF, resin-based adhesive, and conductive adhesive film).
Regarding claim 6, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein the protrusion part of the circuit board includes a plurality of bump electrodes spaced apart from each other.
However, Lu at [0027]-[0064] and Figs. 2-4 teaches a display device including a protrusion part 60 of a circuit board includes a plurality of bump electrodes 50 spaced apart from each other. Lu at Fig. 4 and [0054] further teaches the flexible circuit board having a protrusion part 60 in direct contact with elements 50 disposed in a pad area of display substrate 10 and a body part 61 that is not in direct contact with elements 50 disposed in the pad area and the embodiment allows for increased pulling force of the flexible circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu in the display device of Furuhata and Guo et al. for the purpose of improving the connection of the circuit board to the display substrate.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Guo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. US 2014/0176868.
Regarding claim 8, Furuhata in view of Guo et al. teach the display device of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein an entirety of the circuit board is a rigid printed circuit board.
However, Zhu et al. teach a display device including a printed circuit 66 formed from a rigid printed circuit board (e.g. a layer of fiberglass-filled epoxy) or a flexible printed circuit (e.g., a flexible sheet of polyimide or other flexible polymer layer), or formed of a combination of rigid and flexible printed circuit layers (e.g. rigid printed circuit board with a layer of flexible printed circuitry that extends from an edge of the printed circuit board 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contemplate using s a rigid printed circuit board in place of the flexible circuit board of Furuhata and Guo et al., because they have the equivalent properties, as recognized by Zhu. It has been held that the substitution of one prior teaching by another art supports an obviousness rejection, as in the instant case, the equivalency is being recognized in the prior art, and the substitution is then within the level of ordinary skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.06.II]. See also MPEP § 2143(B), wherein it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2143(B). It is further held that, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 9 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Yoo US 10,390,432, and further in view of Zhu et al. US 2014/0176868.
Regarding claim 9, Furuhata in Figs. 1-2 and related text discloses a display device 100 comprising:
a substrate 1 including a display area 50 and a first pad area 1h spaced apart from the display area 50;
a driving chip 5 disposed on the substrate, the driving chip 5 overlapping the first pad area; and
a circuit board FPC 7 disposed on the substrate 1, the circuit board FPC 7 overlapping an end of the first pad area.
Furuhata does not expressly disclose the second pad area having a plurality of bump electrodes disposed therein, wherein grooves are defined on both lateral sides of the second pad area, wherein an entirety of the circuit board is a rigid circuit board.
Yoo at col. 4, line 54-col. 11, line 17 and Figs. 1-9 discloses a display device comprising: a substrate Fig. 6 including a display area 400 and a first pad area (e.g. panel pad portion, the area outside of display area) spaced apart from the display area col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 1; a driving chip 430 Fig. 6, col. 8, lines 34-38 and col. 9, lines 22-33 and a circuit board 100 col. 7, lines 34-47 disposed on the substrate, the circuit board 100 overlapping an end of the first pad the circuit board including a second pad area having a plurality of bump electrodes BP2 disposed therein col. 11, lines 10-16,
wherein grooves are defined on both lateral sides of the second pad area.
Yoo further teaches that the rigid-flex printed circuit board 100 includes a flexible base film having a first area overlapping the rigid portion 110, and a plurality of second areas which protrudes from the first area while respectively overlapping the plurality of flexible portions 120. The flexible base film is provided in both the rigid portion 110 and the flexible portion 120. The rigid portion 110 and the flexible portion 120 are formed as one body without using an additional connection member. Accordingly, when the flexible base film in the flexible portion 120 is connected with the display panel, the flexible portion 120 may be curved or bent due to a step difference (height difference) between the flexible portion 120 and the display panel. Even in this case, it is possible to reduce possibility of a separation between the rigid portion 110 and the flexible portion 120, and damages on the rigid portion 110 and the flexible portion 120.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoo in the display device of Furuhata for the purpose of improving the functionality of the circuit board.
Yoo teaches a rigid-flexible printed circuit board but does not expressly teach an entirety of the circuit board is a rigid circuit board.
However, Zhu et al. teach a display device including a printed circuit 66 formed from a rigid printed circuit board (e.g. a layer of fiberglass-filled epoxy) or a flexible printed circuit (e.g., a flexible sheet of polyimide or other flexible polymer layer), or formed of a combination of rigid and flexible printed circuit layers (e.g. rigid printed circuit board with a layer of flexible printed circuitry that extends from an edge of the printed circuit board 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contemplate using s a rigid printed circuit board in place of the flexible circuit board of Furuhata and Guo et al., because they have the equivalent properties, as recognized by Zhu. It has been held that the substitution of one prior teaching by another art supports an obviousness rejection, as in the instant case, the equivalency is being recognized in the prior art, and the substitution is then within the level of ordinary skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.06.II]. See also MPEP § 2143(B), wherein it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP § 2143(B). It is further held that, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 9. Furuhata in Figs. 1-2 and related text teach wherein: the driving chip 5 is spaced apart from the circuit board 7 in a first direction. Yoo in Fig. 5 teaches the second pad area includes a first sub-pad area and a second sub-pad area spaced apart from the first sub-pad area in a second direction intersecting the first direction.
Regarding claim 13, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 12. Yoo in Fig. 5 teaches wherein the grooves include a first groove and a second groove defined at both lateral sides of the first sub-pad area, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 12. Yoo in Fig. 5 teaches wherein the grooves further include a third groove and a fourth groove defined at both lateral sides of the second sub-pad area, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 14. Yoo in Fig. 5 does not expressly teach the dimensions wherein the first groove, the second groove, the third groove, and the fourth groove have a same width in the second direction as each other.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 14. Yoo in Fig. 5 does not expressly teach the dimensions wherein the first groove, the second groove, the third groove, and the fourth groove have a same width in the second direction as a width of each of the plurality of bump electrodes in the second direction.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhata in view of Yoo and Zhu et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lu US 2023/0098663.
Regarding claim 10, Furuhata in view of Yoo and further in view of Zhu et al. teach the display device of claim 9. Furuhata in Figs. 1-2 and related text teaches the display device of claim 9 further comprising a first anisotropic conductive film 20 disposed between a plurality of pad electrodes 11 and the driving chip 5, the first anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of pad electrodes and the driving chip to each other.
Furuhata does not expressly disclose the display device further comprising: a plurality of first pad electrodes disposed on the substrate, the plurality of first pad electrodes overlaps the first pad area and is spaced apart from each other;
a plurality of second pad electrodes disposed on the substrate, the plurality of second pad electrodes overlaps the first pad area and is spaced apart from each other;
and a second anisotropic conductive film disposed between the plurality of second pad electrodes and the circuit board, the second anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of second pad electrodes and the circuit board to each other.
However, Lu at [0027]-[0064] and Figs. 2-4 teaches a display device including a plurality of first pad electrodes 50 disposed on a display substrate 10, the plurality of first pad electrodes 50 overlaps a first pad area and is spaced apart from each other;
a plurality of second pad electrodes 51 disposed on the substrate, the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 overlaps the first pad area and is spaced apart from each other;
and a second anisotropic conductive film [0060] disposed between the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 and the circuit board 60, the second anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of second pad electrodes 51 and the circuit board 60 to each other.
In [0056], the virtual bonding pads 51 are added to the side of the bonding pads 50, some virtual gold fingers 71 are added to corresponding positions of the flexible circuit board 60, and the surfaces of the virtual bonding pads 51 and the surfaces of the virtual gold fingers 71 are in contact with each other in one-to-one correspondence, such that the contact area between the flexible circuit board 60 and the display panel 100 is increased, thereby increasing a pulling force of the flexible circuit board 60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu in the display device of Furuhata and Yoo and Zhu et al. for the purpose of improving the connection of the circuit board to the display substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Furuhata in view of Yoo and Zhu et al. and further in view of Lu teach the display device of claim 10. Furuhata teaches wherein the anisotropic conductive film includes an epoxy resin (e.g. ACF, resin-based adhesive, and conductive adhesive film).
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 SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights