DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (h), corresponding to claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 13-16 in the reply filed on 7/04/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the terms “output signal wiring” and “connection wiring”, rendering the claim indefinite. It appears that claim 3 was intended to be dependent on claim 2, which provides antecedent basis for these limitations, and will be interpreted correspondingly.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a display device (Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a substrate including a front panel area, a back panel area, and a bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area (substrate SUB, front panel area A2, back panel area A1, bendable area BA, [0060]-[0061]),
a display area located on the substrate and in the front panel area and having a plurality of light-emitting elements (PXL, [0062]),
an integrated circuit chip located on the substrate and in the back panel area (DDV, [0063], [0050]),
a side wiring portion located on the substrate and in the bendable area so as to electrically connect the light-emitting elements and the integrated circuit chip to each other, wherein the side wiring portion includes a conductive connection portion and a protecting portion covering the conductive connection portion ([0063], protective layer PTL disposed over wires extending from pixels PXL to driver chip DDV).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321) in view of Shin (U.S. PGPub 2019/0019441).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon does not explicitly teach a connection wiring located in the front panel area and configured to transmit a signal from the integrated circuit chip to each of the plurality of light-emitting elements and an output signal wiring located in the back panel area so as to receive the signal from the integrated circuit chip and transmit the signal to the front panel area, wherein the side wiring portion electrically connects the connection wiring and the output signal wiring to each other.
Jeon is silent on the structure of the wiring.
Shin teaches a display device (Fig. 1) comprising a substrate including a front panel area comprising pixels, a back panel area comprising an integrated circuit chip, and a bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area (Figs. 1-3, PXS, IC, [0077]-[0078], [0055]),
a side wiring portion located on the substrate and in the bendable area so as to electrically connect the light-emitting elements and the integrated circuit chip to each other, a connection wiring located in the front panel area and configured to transmit a signal from the integrated circuit chip to each of the plurality of light-emitting elements, an output signal wiring located in the back panel area so as to receive the signal from the integrated circuit chip and transmit the signal to the front panel area, wherein the side wiring portion electrically connects the connection wiring and the output signal wiring to each other (Fig. 1, Figs. 10-12, [0171]-[0172]; connection wiring CL1/2/3a, side wiring portion BL1/2/3, output signal wiring CL1/2/3b, [0175]-[0177], [0189], [0195]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shin with Jeon such that the device comprises a connection wiring located in the front panel area and configured to transmit a signal from the integrated circuit chip to each of the plurality of light-emitting elements and an output signal wiring located in the back panel area so as to receive the signal from the integrated circuit chip and transmit the signal to the front panel area, wherein the side wiring portion electrically connects the connection wiring and the output signal wiring to each other for the purpose of implementing the wiring of Jeon, and because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shin and Jeon teaches wherein one side end of the conductive connection portion of the side wiring portion overlaps a portion of the connection wiring, and the other side end of the conductive connection portion of the side wiring portion overlaps a portion of the output signal wiring. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Shin and Jeon for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321) in view of Son (U.S. PGPub 2017/0047547).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon does not explicitly teach wherein the display device further comprises a support member for fixing a rear surface of the back panel area of the substrate to a rear surface of the front panel area of the substrate facing the back panel area.
Son teaches wherein a display device having a bendable area comprises a support member for fixing a rear surface of the back panel area of the substrate to a rear surface of the front panel area of the substrate facing the back panel area (Fig. 2, 270, [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Son with Jeon such that the display device further comprises a support member for fixing a rear surface of the back panel area of the substrate to a rear surface of the front panel area of the substrate facing the back panel area for the purpose of improving stability of bending and preventing cracks (Son, [0052]).Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321) in view of Kim (U.S. PGPub 2022/0123076).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon teaches wherein the front panel area comprises an organic encapsulation layer and an inorganic sealing protective layer disposed over the light-emitting elements, and the protecting portion covers the conductive connection portion and extends so as to cover a side end surface of the organic encapsulation layer and an inorganic sealing protective layer (TFE, organic/second inorganic layers, [0064]; PTL, [0063]; Fig. 5), wherein the organic encapsulation layer and inorganic sealing protective layer are part of a multilayer encapsulation layer comprising two inorganic layers and an organic layer between them ([0064]). Jeon is silent on the specific structure of each layer.
Jeon does not explicitly teach wherein the organic encapsulation layer is a planarizing layer.
Kim teaches a multilayer encapsulation layer for a display device formed over the light-emitting elements comprising two inorganic layers and an organic layer between them (Fig. 4, 500, [0128], wherein the organic encapsulation layer is a planarization layer ([0129]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim with Jeon the front panel area of the substrate further comprises an upper planarization layer covering the plurality of light-emitting elements, and a sealing protective layer disposed on the upper planarization layer and the protecting portion covers the conductive connection portion and extends so as to cover a side end surface of each of the upper planarization layer and the sealing protection layer for the purpose of implementing the multilayer encapsulation layer of Jeon according to a known structure (Kim, [0129]) and because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321) in view of Chen (U.S. PGPub 2019/0305073).
Regarding claim 13, Jeon teaches wherein the bendable area includes a first bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area and at one side of the display device but does not explicitly teach a second bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area and at the other side opposite to the one side of the display device.
Chen teaches a display device comprising a front panel, back panel, and bendable area, the bendable area including a first bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area and at one side of the display device and a second bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area and at the other side opposite to the one side of the display device (Fig. 14B, [0070], two portions B’ on opposite sides of the substrate; Fig. 1, B, [0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chen with Jeon such that the device comprises a second bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area and at the other side opposite to the one side of the display device for the purpose of reducing risk of damage (Chen, [0069]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Jeon does not explicitly teach a tiling display apparatus in which a plurality of display devices are arranged such that bendable areas of substrates of the plurality of display devices are adjacent to each other, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes a single substrate including the front panel area, the back panel area, and the bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area.
Chen teaches a tiling display apparatus in which a plurality of display devices are arranged adjacent to each other, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes a single substrate including the front panel area, the back panel area, and the bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area (Fig. 1, 12, A, C, B, [0026]) and further teaches wherein bendable areas of substrates of the plurality of display devices are adjacent to each other (Fig. 14B, [0070], two bendable portions B’ on opposite sides of the substrate; incorporated into the tiled display of Fig. 1, the bendable areas would be adjacent to each other).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Chen with Jeon such that the device is a tiling display apparatus in which a plurality of display devices are arranged such that bendable areas of substrates of the plurality of display devices are adjacent to each other, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes a single substrate including the front panel area, the back panel area, and the bendable area disposed between the front panel area and the back panel area for the purpose of providing a tiled display device with reduced risk of damage (Chen, [0028], [0069]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (U.S. PGPub 2021/0091321) in view of Kim (U.S. PGPub 2022/0093712).
Regarding claim 14, Jeon does not explicitly teach wherein the light-emitting element is embodied as a micro-LED including a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer, a passivation pattern disposed on an outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure, a first electrode in contact with the first semiconductor layer, and a second electrode in contact with the second semiconductor layer.
Kim teaches a display device having organic light emitting elements or inorganic light emitting elements ([0092]) including micro-LEDs ([0110]), including a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer ([0110]);
a passivation pattern disposed on an outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure, a first electrode in contact with the first semiconductor layer, a second electrode in contact with the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 10, [0185], INS1, CNE1/2, [0195]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kim with Jeon such that the the light-emitting element is embodied as a micro-LED including a nitride semiconductor structure including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer, and a second semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer, a passivation pattern disposed on an outer surface of the nitride semiconductor structure, a first electrode in contact with the first semiconductor layer, and a second electrode in contact with the second semiconductor layer because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights