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 .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 6/16/2026.
Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn. Claims 12 and 16-18 are cancelled. Claim 11 is currently amended. Claim 11 is independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amendments, filed 6/16/2026, with respect to 112 Rejections, as indicated in line number 2 of the office action mailed 3/17/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants' arguments and amendments, filed 6/16/2026, with respect to independent claim 11, although substantive and pertinent to expediting the prosecution of the current application, are considered moot and not persuasive, respectfully, in light of new grounds of rejections made using the prior art of Yug as noted below in the rejection of independent claim 11.
Additionally, regarding applicants’ contention that the present application describes a device having the claimed relative dimensions as found in claim 11 would perform differently than the prior art device and thereby the cited case law of In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. is not relevant to the rejection of claim 11 (Remarks 6-8) the contentions are fully considered, however are not found persuasive for the reasons that follow. In the remarks applicants appear to have only provided evidence of properties associated with the device with the claimed minimum thickness of the edge portion of the current application, but does not provide evidence to how/why the prior art would perform differently than the device with the claimed minimum thickness of the edge portion. For example, it appears the device with the claimed minimum thickness of the edge portion of the current application would not be defective due to the avoidance of heat/spark during the manufacturing process, however it has not been shown whether the prior art device would be defective as a result of its own manufacturing process and/or whether it would even experience heat/spark resulting in the cited defect described in the current application. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons the use of the cited case law of In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. is maintained.
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.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Yug (US 2020/0301474 A1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel 100 (“display panel”- ¶0070) comprising a light-emitting element EML (“light emitting layer”- ¶0074) above a substrate TSL (“touch layer”- ¶0074) (see Fig. 5 as viewed upside down); and
a support member 400_5 (“polymer base layer”- ¶0167) under the display panel 100, and comprising:
a central portion (i.e., the central portion of 400_5) having a flat bottom surface (i.e., the horizontal surface of 400_5 facing away from 100); and
an edge portion (i.e., the side edge portion of 400_5) having a minimum thickness (i.e., the thickness of the side surface of 400_5) and comprising:
an end surface (i.e., the side surface of 400_5) on a virtual plane with an end surface (i.e., the side surface of 100) of the display panel 100; and
a connection surface (i.e., the diagonal surface of 400_5) connecting the end surface and the flat bottom surface of the central portion, and having an inclined cross-sectional shape.
Yug does not expressly disclose wherein the minimum thickness of the edge portion is less than or equal to about 20 micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to form the minimum thickness of the edge portion within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein a thickness of the central portion is different from a thickness of the edge portion.
Regarding claim 14, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the thickness of the central portion of the support member 400_5 is greater than the thickness of the edge portion of the support member 400_5.
Regarding claim 15, Yug does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the central portion is greater than or equal to 90 micrometers and less than or equal to 250 micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the central portion of the support member within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In 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)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Haba et al. (US 2012/0092832 A1, hereinafter “Haba”).
Regarding claim 19, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the support member 400_5 comprises a polymer (¶0088), and is used to diffuse heat given heat from the display panel 100 would have to travel through support member 400_5 to reach heat radiation member 500 (¶0089) (see Fig. 3).
Yug does not expressly disclose wherein the support member comprises metal.
Figure 4 of Haba discloses a device comprising a support member 1290 (“support element”- ¶0030) which is comprised of a thermally conductive material such as a metal-filled polymer material (¶0030).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yug such that the support member comprises a thermally conductive material such as a metal-filled polymer material (which includes metal) as taught by Haba for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and well-known type of material of a support member which improves heat transfer and dissipation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Xin et al. (US 2022/0255037 A1, hereinafter “Xin”).
Regarding claim 20, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the support member 400_5 comprises a polymer such as polyimide (¶0088 and Claim 9).
Yug does not expressly disclose wherein the support member comprises fiber reinforced plastic.
Figure 3 of Xin discloses a display device comprising a support member 1 (“base substrate”- ¶0032) which is comprised of a polymer such as polyimide (PI) or fiber reinforced plastic (¶0032).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yug such that the support member comprises fiber reinforced plastic as taught by Xin for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and well-known type of polymer for the support member (Xin ¶0032).
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 JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights