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 .
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.
Claims 19-21, 23-25 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.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “at least one side edge of the insulating protection layer exhibits retraction relative to a corresponding side edge of the conductive layer” is unclear. The term retraction involves the action of retracting. It is unclear if the insulating protection layer has the ability to be retracted. Therefore, in order to further prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the edge of the conductive layer extends further than the edge of the insulating protection layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien (Patent No. US 10,091,869).
As to claim 19, Chien discloses a composite adhesive tape 102 (fig. 2) for a display device comprising:
a conductive layer 107;
an insulating protection layer 132 at a side of the conductive layer, wherein in at least one direction in which the conductive layer extends, at least one side edge of the insulating protection layer exhibits retraction relative to a corresponding side edge of the conductive layer; and
a first adhesive layer 111 at a side of the insulating protection layer away from the conductive layer or between the conductive layer and the insulating protection layer.
Claim(s) 19, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (CN 211972200 U; herein referred to as Cui A; Pub. No. US 2021/0323273 is used for translation).
As to claim 19, Cui A discloses a composite adhesive tape 100 (fig. 11) for a display device comprising:
a conductive layer 102;
an insulating protection layer 1031 at a side of the conductive layer, wherein in at least one direction in which the conductive layer extends, at least one side edge of the insulating protection layer exhibits retraction relative to a corresponding side edge of the conductive layer; and
a first adhesive layer 1032 at a side of the insulating protection layer away from the conductive layer or between the conductive layer and the insulating protection layer.
As to claim 25, Cui A discloses that a width of the insulating protection layer in a direction of the retraction is greater than or equal to 1.6 mm (¶0057).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 19, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 211972200U; herein referred to as Cui B; Pub. No. US 2021/0323273 is used for translation) in view of Kuroda (Pub. No. US 2015/0248139).
As to claim 19, Cui B discloses a composite adhesive tape 100 (fig. 5) for a display device comprising:
a conductive layer 102;
an insulating protection layer 101 at a side of the conductive layer, wherein in at least one direction in which the conductive layer extends, at least one side edge of the insulating protection layer exhibits retraction relative to a corresponding side edge of the conductive layer; and
a first adhesive layer 102 at a side of the insulating protection layer away from the conductive layer or between the conductive layer and the insulating protection layer.
However, Cui does not disclose a separate conductive layer and first adhesive layer.
Kuroda discloses a conductive sheet having a conductive layer 2 and an adhesive layer 20 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive conductive layer of Cui be formed of a conductive layer and a conductive adhesive layer in order to provide a reliably conductive adhesive tape.
As to claim 23, Cui B does not disclose that a material for the conductive layer comprises aluminum; and the conductive layer is in direct contact with the insulating protection layer.
Kuroda discloses a material for the conductive layer comprises aluminum (¶0021) and the conductive layer is in direct contact with the insulating protection layer (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive conductive layer of Cui be formed of an aluminum conductive layer and a conductive adhesive layer in order to provide a reliably conductive adhesive tape.
Cui B discloses a conductive adhesive layer in direct contact with the insulating protection layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conductive layer be in direct contact with the insulating protection layer since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As to claim 24, Cui B does not disclose that a distance of the retraction is in a range from 0.2 mm to 1.4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the retraction of Cui B be in a range from 0.2mm to 1.4mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 25, Cui B discloses that a width of the insulating protection layer in a direction of the retraction is greater than or equal to 1.6 mm (¶0057).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 211972200U; herein referred to as Cui A; Pub. No. US 2021/0323273 is used for translation).
As to claim 24, Cui A does not disclose that a distance of the retraction is in a range from 0.2 mm to 1.4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the retraction of Cui A be in a range from 0.2mm to 1.4mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art or record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim, a combination of limitations disclosing a first flexible circuit board electrically connected to the first group of bonding electrodes, wherein an upper edge of the first flexible circuit board is lower than an upper edge of the first side edge end surface; a first insulating protection layer at a side of the first flexible circuit board away from the first group of bonding electrodes, wherein an upper edge of the first insulating protection layer is higher than the upper edge of the first flexible circuit board, and a lower edge of the first insulating protection layer is lower than the first group of bonding electrodes; a first conductive layer comprising a first portion extending along the light-exiting upper surface of the display panel and a second portion extending along the first side edge end surface, wherein the first insulating protection layer is between the second portion and the first flexible circuit board; and a first adhesive layer at a side of the first conductive layer close to the display panel, wherein the first insulating protection layer is between the first adhesive layer and the first flexible circuit board or between the first adhesive layer and the first conductive layer. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Claims 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.
Regarding dependent claim 20, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations within the claim and limitation recited in claim 19, a combination of limitations that discloses wherein the insulating protection layer comprises an organic insulating film and a heat conductive layer at a side of the organic insulating film away from the conductive layer. None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMOL H PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7833. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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 THOMPSON can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/AMOL H PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights