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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Fig. 2 of Lee as labeled by examiner below discloses the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses wherein the display panel includes a plurality of side surfaces, and the first packages and the second packages are attached to same side surface among the plurality of side surfaces, and
wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged in a first direction DR2, respectively, and the second packages do not overlap or partially overlap with the first packages in a second direction DR3 which is a direction perpendicular to the first direction.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. 20210033909.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-2 of Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel DP displaying data on a screen; and
a plurality of first packages (left 2 GDR1 as labeled by examiner above) and a plurality of second packages (right 2 GDR1 as labeled by examiner above) where chips (IC1/iC1) for driving the display panel are installed, the first packages and the second packages being attached to an end portion of the display panel,
wherein the display panel includes a plurality of side surfaces, and the first packages and the second packages are attached to same side surface among the plurality of side surfaces, and
wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged in a first direction DR2, respectively, and the second packages do not overlap or partially overlap with the first packages in a second direction DR3 which is a direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 12, figs. 1-2 of Lee discloses a substrate package attached to an end portion of a display panel, which displays data on a screen, comprising:
a plurality of first packages (left 2 GDR1 as labeled by examiner above) and a plurality of second packages (right 2 GDR1 as labeled by examiner above) where chips (IC1/IC1) for driving the display panel are installed, the first packages and the second packages being attached to an end portion of the display panel,
wherein the display panel includes a plurality of side surfaces, and the first packages and the second packages are attached to same side surface among the plurality of side surfaces, and
wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged in a first direction DR2, respectively, and the second packages do not overlap or partially overlap with the first packages in a second direction DR3 which is a direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 3, figs. 1-2 of Lee discloses a display device comprising: wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged in parallel (DR2 direction) to each other along a length direction of the display panel.
Regarding claim 5, figs. 6-10 of Lee discloses wherein the first packages and the second packages are chip-on-films (COFs – ACF1).
Regarding claim 6, fig. 1 of Lee discloses wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged such that their surfaces where the chips are installed are oriented in the same direction DR2.
Regarding claim 7, fig. 1 of Lee discloses wherein the first packages and the second packages are arranged such that their surfaces where the chips are installed are oriented in opposite directions (left and right sides are opposite).
Regarding claim 8, fig. 2 of Lee discloses wherein among the first packages, two different first packages are attached at a distance from each other.
Regarding claim 11, figs. 6 and 9 of Lee discloses wherein the first packages and the second packages are bent (to a degree as bent is a term of degree) over toward one surface or the other surface of the display panel after attached to the display panel.
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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to form a display panel comprising wherein the distance between the two different first packages varies depending on a type of the display panel and the type of the display panel affects the side of the panel and therefore changes the distance to some degree.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to form a display panel comprising wherein the distance between the two different first packages varies depending on a length and channel quantity of the first packages, resolution, subpixel quantity, and a length of one side of the display panel as these variables affect the size of the display panel.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893