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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andou (US 20180027673).
Regarding claim 1, Andou discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel (display device, 100, Fig. 1) including: a display area (display area A);
a pad area (terminal area D) spaced apart from the display area; and
a bending area (the bent area C) adjacent to the display area in a first direction, disposed between the display area and the pad area, and bent from the display area;
a window member (the surface reinforcing film 54) disposed on a first surface of the display panel; and
a spacer (the spacer 56) disposed on a second surface of the display panel opposite to the first surface and overlapping the display area and the pad area, wherein a first opening pattern (the notches n) is defined at an end portion of the spacer.
Regarding claim 3, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Andou further suggests the first opening pattern includes a plurality of first openings (there are two notches n) arranged in at least one row in a plan view.
Regarding claim 6, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Andou further discloses a printed circuit board (76, Fig. 1) connected to the display panel in the pad area (D); and a conductive tape (an anisotropic conductive film 72, paragraph 32) disposed between the printed circuit board and the display panel.
Regarding claim 7, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 6. Andou further suggests the conductive tape is disposed on the second surface of the display panel (the anisotropic conductive film 72 is on the opposite side surface with the display surface).
Regarding claim 15, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Andou suggests a driving integrated circuit (an integrated chip 74) disposed on the first surface of the display panel and overlapping the pad area.
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) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andou (US 20180027673), in view of Kwon (US 20140217382).
Regarding claim 2, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1.
Andou does not explicitly disclose the spacer includes polyethylene terephthalate.
Kwon teaches the spacer (the insert member 150) is made of polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use known material such as polyethylene terephthalate in this field in order to make a spacer for the flexible display.
Regarding claim 4, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 3.
Andou does not explicitly disclose a size of each of the plurality of first openings in the first direction is in a range of about 0.1 millimeter to about 0.3 millimeter.
Kwon suggests the dimension of the component in the similar setting in the millimeter range (paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the size of the working components in order to fit all of the components in the limited space of the circuit board.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andou (US 20180027673), in view of Andou (US 20180019417, hereinafter Andou2).
Regarding claim 8, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 6.
Andou does not explicitly disclose a second opening pattern is defined at an end portion of the conductive tape.
Andou2 teaches an opening (d3, Fig. 1) is at an end portion of the conductive film (72).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add more or duplicating the working component as needed in order to improve the substrate of the circuit board.
Regarding claim 9, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 8. Andou2 further suggests the end portion of the conductive tape is adjacent to the end portion of the spacer (the opening d3 is at the end side of the circuit board 76 and the display 100).
Regarding claim 13, Andou discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1.
Andou does not explicitly disclose an adhesive member disposed between the window member and the display panel.
Andou2 suggests the adhesive (62, 66) was used to attach layers of the display together.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a common coupling substance such as adhesive in order to attach the layers of the display together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 5, 10 – 12, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1 and 3, a combination of limitations that the plurality of first openings is arranged in two rows, and the two rows are spaced apart from each other by a range of about 0.1 millimeter to about 0.3 millimeter along the first direction which is a column direction. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1, 6 and 8, a combination of limitations that the second opening pattern includes a plurality of second openings arranged in at least one row in a plan view. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 1 and 13, a combination of limitations that the adhesive member includes optically clear adhesive. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 1, a combination of limitations that a conductive tape disposed between the printed circuit board and the display panel and disposed on the second surface of the display panel, wherein a first opening pattern is defined at an end portion of the spacer, and a second opening pattern is defined at an end portion of the conductive tape adjacent to the first opening pattern in the first direction. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okuda (US 20080106874) discloses a circuit board having a spacer with an opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH B TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Timothy J Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/BINH B TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848