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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 25-27 have been considered, but do not address any of the formality issues raised in the instant application.
Objections to the Claims, Specification and Drawings
There is a lack of correspondence between the claimed subject matter, the detailed written description, the summary of invention and the drawings as to
Claim 1, lines 7-8 requires “a flexible film . . . passes through the first opening to be disposed on the rear surface of the cover bottom” (emphasis added). “Dispose on” is understood to mean that the flexible film COF is either directly or indirectly on the rear surface of the cover bottom 160. Figs. 7 to 10 illustrate a flexible film COP passing through first opening 161. In the region of the opening 161, there is no material of the cover bottom 160 for the flexible film COF to be disposed on. So how is the flexible film COF disposed on the rear surface of the cover bottom?
PNG
media_image1.png
524
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 2, “includes” should be “further includes”; and
Claim 27, line 4, “each display device” should be “each of the display devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27, lines 3-4 requires “a distance between outermost pixels of adjacent display device is equal to a distance between pixels within each display device.” The Examiner believes that support for this limitation is in fig. 2B and accompanying written description in para. [0046] of the specification.
[0046] For example, the plurality of sub pixels SP may form one pixel PX and a distance D1 between an outermost pixel PX of one display device 100 and an outermost pixel PX of another display device 100 adjacent to one display device may be implemented to be equal to a distance D1 between pixels PX in one display device 100. Accordingly, a constant distance D1 between pixels PX between the display devices 100 is configured to reduce or minimize the seam area.
PNG
media_image2.png
970
1348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The originally filed disclosure has that a pitch (i.e., distance D1) between pixels PX that is constant in a longitudinal direction across the tiling display device TD regardless of whether the pixels XP are within the same display device 100 or between pairs of pixels XP that span between two adjacent ones of the display devices 100. However what is claimed is different than what is taught in the originally filed disclosure. What is claimed is a comparison between “a distance between outermost pixels of adjacent display device” which is understood as being a distance between outermost pixels of the pixels PX of the same adjacent display device” and “a distance between pixels [PX] within each display device [100].” There is a lack of antecedence between “adjacent display device” of claim 27, and either the display device 100 of claim 1 or the plurality of display devices 100 of claim 26. Therefore, the “adjacent display device” may or may not be the same display device (claim 1) or the plurality of display devices (claim 26) that are being claimed. What appears to be intended to be claimed is that a distance D1 between an outermost pixel PX of a first one of the display devices 100 and an outermost pixel PX of another one of the display devices 100 (in the longitudinal direction) that is adjacent to the first one of the display devices is equal to a distance between adjacent pairs of pixels (also in the longitudinal direction) in each of the display devices.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 25-27 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3 and 7 each require “a rear surface of the display panel.” Are these the same or different rear surfaces of the display panel?
Claim 1, line 8, “the rear surface” (relating to the cover bottom) lacks antecedent basis;
d. Claim 5, line 2 requires “a rear surface” (of the cover bottom) and Claim 1, line 8 requires “the rear surface” (of the cover bottom). Are these the same or different rear surfaces of the cover bottom?
Claim 25, requires “a plurality of light emitting elements.” Can these be separate from any of the other elements of claim 1 and furnished as a “kit”, or are these “plurality of light emitting elements” further defining the display panel of claim 1?
Claim 26, line 2 requires “a plurality of display devices” and the preamble of Claim 1 is “[a] display device.” Does each of the “plurality of display devices” have to have the structure of the “display device” of claim 1?
Claim 27, lines 1-2, “the plurality of sub pixels” lacks antecedent basis;
Claim 27, lines 1-2 requires “the plurality of sub pixels form a plurality of pixels.” This claim language allows for there to be a one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-one correspondence between the sub pixels and the pixels? Based upon the disclosure did Applicant intended that “a group of the plurality of sub pixels form a pixel”? Note para. [0035] of the specification discloses “n sub pixels SP may form one pixel PX”?
Claim 27, lines 2 and 4 each require “pixels.” Are these the same or different pixels being claimed?
Claim 27, line 3 requires “outermost pixels”, lines 1-2 require “the plurality of sub pixels” and line 2 requires “a plurality of pixels.” Are the “outermost pixels” separate and not a part of either “the plurality of sub pixels” or the “plurality of pixels”, or is the “outermost pixels” a portion of either the plurality of sub pixels or the plurality of pixels?
Claim 27, line 3 requires ‘adjacent display device,” Claim 26, line 2 requires “a plurality of display devices” and the preamble of claim 1 requires “[a] display device,” Since there is no antecedence, each of the plurality of display panels do not have to have the structure of the display panel of claim 1.
Claim 27, line 3 requires “outermost pixels.” Are the “outermost pixels” relating to a portion of the sub pixels which are disposed on the outmost portion of each display device (or display panel) or are these outermost pixels referring to some of the “plurality of pixels” that are being claimed?
m. Claim 27, lines 3-4 requires “a distance between pixels within each display device.” This refers to a distance between each pair of pixels within each display device regardless of whether these pairs of pixels are adjacent to each other, or is the distance being referred to a distance between each pair of adjacent pixels along a longitudinal direction of each display device?
Allowable Subject Matter
Due to the number of issues raised in the instant action, no allowable subject matter is being indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,664,479, 2024/0292572, 2024/0290931, 2024/0332477 and 2024/0334663 are related inventions..
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
RJH 5/19/2026
/ROBERT J HOFFBERG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Prosecution Insights