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 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that none of Kim’s driving ICs 330 and 350 (i.e., none of the chip-on-film of Kim) are bent from the frontside toward the backside of the display panel, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner takes position that the chip-on-film is a package containing a chip mounted on a flexible substrate. The flexible substrate 300 having driving chip 330 & 350 is a chip-on-film package which is flexible to wrap around the bending display from the frontside surface to the backside surface of 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200315015), in view of Yamato (US 20210036092).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel (the display 100, Fig. 1) comprising a frontside (front display area DA), a backside (backside of the DA), a first side (the side attached to the circuit board 300) extended along a first direction (DR1), and a second side (left side of the DA) extended along a second direction (DR2) intersecting the first direction;
a chip-on-film (the first circuit board 300) attached to the frontside of the display panel at the first side and bent from the frontside toward the backside of the display panel (the flexible circuit board 300 is flexible to bend and attach to the frontside and backside of the display panel, Fig. 5); and
a source printed circuit board (the second circuit board 500) connected to the chip-on-film and overlapping with the backside of the display panel,
wherein the first side is curved in a thickness direction of the display panel (the display is flexible, foldable and rollable; paragraph 57),
wherein the source printed circuit board comprises a third side (left side of the circuit board 500) extended along the second direction (DR2) and a fourth side (the side parallel to DR1) extended along the first direction (DR1), and the chip-on-film (300) overlaps with the curved first side of the display panel in a plan view of the display apparatus (the flexible circuit board 300 having a chip 330 is flexibly overlapping the curve of the flexible display, Fig. 7).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the fourth side having a length that is shorter than a length of the third side.
Yamato suggests the flexible circuit board (60) having the length of the left side along DR2 direction longer than the side extending along the DR1 direction, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the shape and dimension of the circuit board in order to fit the circuit board in the limited space of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Kim further suggests the display panel is curved in a direction from the backside to the frontside (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Kim further suggests the chip-on-film is bent from the frontside of the display panel (the display is flexible, bendable, rollable; paragraph 57; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Kim further suggests the source printed circuit board is on the backside of the display panel (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 4. Kim further suggests a first portion (the surface of circuit board 510 in contact with the display 100), a second portion (the side surface of the circuit board 510), and a third portion (the other side surface of the circuit board 510), the first portion between the second portion and the third portion, and the first portion contacts the backside of the display panel (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel (display panel 100, Fig. 14) comprising a frontside (the display side DA), a backside (the backside of the display side), a first side (the side extending along the DR1 direction) extended along a first direction (DR1), and a second side (the side extending the DR2 direction) extended along a second direction (DR2) intersecting the first direction;
a first chip-on-film (the first circuit board 300_1, Fig. 14) attached to the frontside of the display panel at the first side and bent from the frontside toward the backside of the display panel;
a second chip-on-film (the second circuit board 300_2) attached to the frontside of the display panel at the first side and spaced apart from the first chip-on-film in the first direction;
a first source printed circuit board (the first base substrate 510) connected to the first chip-on-film and overlapping with the backside of the display panel; and
a second source printed circuit board (the second base substrate 530) connected to the second chip-on-film,
wherein the first side is curved in a thickness direction of the display panel (the display is flexible, foldable and rollable; paragraph 57),
wherein the first source printed circuit board comprises a third side extended along the second direction (DR2) and a fourth side extended along the first direction (DR1), and wherein the first chip-on-film and the second-on-film overlap with the curved first side of the display panel in a plan view of the display apparatus (the chip-on-film substrate 300 or 300_1 combined with 300_2 may overlap with the curve of the display as shown in Fig. 9).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the fourth side having a length that is shorter than a length of the third side.
Yamato suggests the flexible circuit board (60) having the length of the left side along DR2 direction longer than the side extending along the DR1 direction, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the shape and dimension of the circuit board in order to fit the circuit board in the limited space of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the second source printed circuit board comprises a fifth side extended along the second direction and a sixth side extended along the first direction, the sixth side having a length that is shorter than a length of the fifth side.
Yamato suggests the flexible circuit board (60) having the length of the left side along DR2 direction longer than the side extending along the DR1 direction, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the shape and dimension of the circuit board in order to fit the circuit board in the limited space of the electronic device.
Claim(s) 9 – 12, 16 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200315015), in view of Yamato (US 20210036092), in further view of Huang (US 20200286922).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose a control printed circuit board connected to the source printed circuit board, the control printed circuit board comprising a fifth side extending along the first direction and a sixth side extending along the second direction, the fifth side having a length that is shorter than a length of the sixth side.
Huang teaches a control circuit board (the control board 100, Fig. 1a) connected to the printed circuit board (the printed circuit board 103) comprising a fifth side (the side extending along the DR1 direction) extending along the first direction and a sixth side (the side extending a long the DR2 direction) extending a long a second direction.
Yamato suggests the flexible circuit board (60) having the length of the left side along DR2 direction longer than the side extending along the DR1 direction, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add more components as well as circuit in order to complete the intended circuitry. It is also obvious to the one skilled in the art to adjust the shape and dimension of the circuit board in order to fit the circuit board in the limited space of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 9. Huang further suggests a cable (cable 102) connecting the source printed circuit board and the control printed circuit board, the cable extending in the first direction and comprises a connector (the connectors on the cable 102) at each of both ends of the cable.
Regarding claim 11, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 9. Huang further suggests the cable comprises a plurality of cables in the second direction (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 12, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Huang further suggests the chip-on-film (104, Fig. 1) comprises a plurality of chip-on-films in the first direction, and the source printed circuit board comprises a plurality of source printed circuit boards (103) in the first direction (DR1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim, in view of Yamato, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13.
Kim does not explicitly disclose a control printed circuit board positioned between the first source printed circuit board and the second source printed circuit board, wherein the control printed circuit board comprises a seventh side extended along the first direction and a eighth side extended along the second direction, the seventh side having a length that is shorter than a length of the eighth side.
Huang suggests a control circuit board (100, Fig. 1a) is connecting the two source circuit boards (103) together.
Yamato suggests the flexible circuit board (60) having the length of the left side along DR2 direction longer than the side extending along the DR1 direction, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add more components as well as circuit in order to complete the intended circuitry. It is also obvious to the one skilled in the art to adjust the shape and dimension of the circuit board in order to fit the circuit board in the limited space of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 17, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 16. Kim further suggests the first source printed circuit board, the second source printed circuit board, and the control printed circuit board are on the backside of the display panel (the display panel is flexible, rollable; therefore, the source circuit board may be rolled to the back side as suggested in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 16. Huang further suggests a first cable (the left side cable 102, Fig 1a) connecting the first source printed circuit board (the left side circuit board 103) and the control printed circuit board, and a second cable (the right side cable 102) connecting the second source printed circuit board (the right side board 103) and the control printed circuit board (100), wherein the first cable and the second cable each extends along the first direction (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 19, Kim, in view of Yamato and Huang, discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 18. Huang further suggests at least one of the first cable and the second cable comprises a plurality of cables in the second direction (two cables 102 in the DR2 direction, Fig. 1a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 8, 15, 20, 21 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 6, 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, 4 and 5, a combination of limitations that a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of the second portion and a thickness of the third portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 7, 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, 4 and 5, a combination of limitations that the second portion and the third portion are spaced apart from the backside of the display panel. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 13 and 14, a combination of limitations that the display panel comprises a first curvature region having a first curvature radius and a second curvature region having a second curvature radius, the first curvature radius greater than the second curvature radius, the first chip-on-film is attached to the first curvature region, and the second chip-on-film is attached to the second curvature region, the length of the fourth side of the first source printed circuit board is greater than the length of the sixth side of the second source printed circuit board. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claim 13, a combination of limitations that the first source printed circuit board comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, the first portion positioned between the second portion and the third portion, and wherein a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of the second portion and a thickness of the third portion. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 13 and 14, a combination of limitations that the second source printed circuit board comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, the first portion positioned between the second portion and the third portion, and wherein a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of each of the second portion and the third portion. 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.
Koh (US 20240078947) discloses a display having multiple circuit boards connected to, Fig. 1.
Choi (US 20200214127) discloses a display having two circuit boards and a control board connected to, Fig. 1.
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 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