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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 and 23 in the “Reply To Restriction Requirement” filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Nonelected claims 18-22 and 24-31 have been withdrawn by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9—line 1, “the first vent hole is” should be “the plurality of first vent holes are”;
Regarding claim 10—line 1, “the first vent hole is” should be “the plurality of first vent holes are”;
Regarding claim 10—line 2, “the first heat dissipation fin” should be “the plurality of first heat dissipation fins”;
Regarding claim 11—on lines 1-2, “the first heat dissipation fin is” should be “the plurality of first heat dissipation fins are”;
Regarding claim 11—on line 3, “the first vent holes” should be “the plurality of first vent holes”;
Regarding claim 12—on lines 1-2, “the first heat dissipation fin is bent” should be “the plurality of first heat dissipation fins are bent”;
Regarding claim 12—on line 2, “the first vent hole” should be “the plurality of first vent holes”;
Regarding claim 13—on lines 1-2, “the first heat dissipation fin is” should be “the plurality of first heat dissipation fins are”;
Regarding claim 13—on lines 2-3 “one edge of the first vent hole which is bent toward an inside of the first vent hole” should be “an edge of each of the plurality of first vent holes which are each bent toward an inside of each of the plurality of first vent holes”;
Regarding claim 15—lines 1-2, “the second vent hole is” should be “the plurality of second vent holes are”;
Regarding claim 15—line 2, “the second heat dissipation fin” should be “the plurality of second heat dissipation fins”;
Regarding claim 16—lines 1-2, “the second heat dissipation fin is” should be “the plurality of second heat dissipation fins are”; and
Regarding claim 16—line3, “the second vent holes” should be “the plurality of second vent holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-7 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 4, lines 2-3 recite: a gate driver which is mounted between the plurality of sub pixels in a gate in active area (GIA) manner. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the meaning of “in a gate in active area (GIA) manner” is unclear because it doesn’t explain how this language affects the mounting of the gate driver and this language is not defined by the claim. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 2-3 of claim 4 as reciting: “a gate driver which is mounted between the plurality of sub pixels” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 5, lines 4-5 recite: a second pad electrode disposed in the non-active area of the rear surface of the display panel to be electrically connected to a flexible film. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the use of “to be electrically connected” makes it unclear whether the second pad electrode is actually connected to a flexible film. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 4-5 of claim 5 as reciting: “a second pad electrode disposed in the non-active area of the rear surface of the display panel and electrically connected to a flexible film” because of this ambiguity. Claim 6 is indefinite because it depends from claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, lines 5-6 recite: wherein the plurality of flexible films and the printed circuit board pass through the opening to be disposed on the rear surface of the cover bottom. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the use of “to be disposed” makes it unclear whether the plurality of flexible films and printed circuit board are actually disposed on the rear surface of the cover. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 5-6 of claim 7 as reciting: “wherein the plurality of flexible films and the printed circuit board pass through the opening and are disposed on the rear surface of the cover bottom” because of this ambiguity.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0027672 A1 (Cho) in view of US 2014/0152906 A1 (Yokawa).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses, A display device (FIG. 1), comprising:
a display panel display panel (100); FIG. 1; [0028] having an active area (annotated FIG. 1, below) and a non-active area (annotated FIG. 1, below) adjacent to the active area (annotated FIG. 1, below);
PNG
media_image1.png
620
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cover bottom (cover bottom (200); FIG. 2; [0044]) which supports the display panel (100) on a rear surface (first annotated FIG. 2, below) of the display panel (100), the cover bottom having an opening (opening (273); FIG. 2; [0052]);
PNG
media_image2.png
725
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plate bottom (plate bottom (435); FIG. 2; [0053]) disposed in the opening (273) of the cover bottom (200);
a printed circuit board (printed circuit board (172 and/or 174); FIG. 2; [0040]) disposed on a rear surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) of the plate bottom (435); and
a cover shield (cover shield (500); FIG. 2; [0049]) disposed to cover the printed circuit board (172 and/or 174) on a rear surface (first annotated FIG. 2; above) of the cover bottom (200).1
But, Cho does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a plurality of first vent holes and a plurality of first heat dissipation fins are disposed in a part of the plate bottom.
However, in analogous art, Yokawa discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a display device (display device (200); FIG. 11; [0074]) may be predicably fabricated to include a plurality of first vent holes (plurality of first vent holes (24e and 24f); FIG. 11; [0075] and [0076]) and a plurality of first heat dissipation fins (plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a); FIG. 11; [0074]) to conduct heat in the form of hot air out of display device (200) ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho and Yokawa before him/her to dispose a plurality of first vent holes and a plurality of first heat dissipation fins in a part of the plate bottom (435) of Cho, as taught by Yokawa, to conduct heat from adjacent printed circuit board (172 and/or 174) out of display device (FIG. 1) of Cho, as also taught by Yokawa.
PNG
media_image3.png
573
745
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein in the active area (annotated FIG. 1, above), a plurality of sub pixels (Cho, [0038]) and various circuits (Cho, circuits (123); FIG. 2; [0041]-[0043]) are disposed and a light emitting element (Cho, [0039]) is disposed in each of the plurality of sub pixels (Cho, [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 2, further comprising:
a first pad electrode (first pad electrode in circuits (123)) disposed in the non-active area (annotated FIG. 1, above) of a front surface of the display panel (100)2 to transmit a signal to the plurality of sub pixels (Cho, [0038])3; and
a second pad electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above) disposed in the non-active area (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the rear surface of the display panel (100)4 to be electrically connected to a flexible film (first annotated FIG. 2, above) and the printed circuit board (172 and/or 174).5
Regarding claim 6, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 5, further comprising:
a side line (Cho, [0041]—a line inside circuits (123)) disposed along a side surface (first annotated FIG. 2, above) of the display panel (100) to electrically connect the first pad electrode (first pad electrode in circuits (123)) and the second pad electrode (first annotated FIG. 2, above).
Regarding claim 7, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, further comprising:
a flexible film (first annotated FIG. 2, above) which is electrically connected to the printed circuit board (172 and/or 174),
wherein the flexible film and the printed circuit board (172 and/or 174) pass through the opening (273) to be disposed on the rear surface of the cover bottom (200) to connect to a PCB in an empty space at a center of opening (273) (Cho, [0044]) 6 and 7.
But, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, a plurality of flexible films.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho and Yokawa before him/her would have recognized that the mere duplication of a flexible film disclosed by the combination of Cho in view of Yokawa for a plurality of flexible films has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Please, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the plurality of first vent holes and the plurality of first heat dissipation fins are exposed without being covered by the cover shield.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho and Yokawa before him/her to expose the plurality of first vent holes (24e and 24f) and the plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa without being covered by the cover shield (500) thereof to expose first vent holes (24e and 24f) and plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) to ambient air, thereby facilitating access to relatively cooler air, as taught by Yokawa ([0079]).
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the first vent hole (24e and 24F) is disposed to be perpendicular to an edge (annotated FIG. 11, above) of the plate bottom (Yokawa, plate bottom (24); FIG. 11; [0075]) along the edge (annotated FIG. 11, above) of the plate bottom (24). 8 and 9
Regarding claim 10 ,Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the first vent hole (24e and 24F) is configured by an opening cut while forming the first heat dissipation fin (29a) because there is no structural difference in the plurality of first vent holes (24e and 24f) of Cho in view of Yokawa based on when and/or how they are formed with respect to the formation of the first plurality of heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa.10
Regarding claim 11, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the first heat dissipation fin (29a) is disposed on an edge (Yokawa, annotated FIG. 10, below) disposed to be perpendicular (annotated FIG. 10, below) to an edge (annotated FIG. 10, below) of the plate bottom (Yokawa, plate bottom (24); FIG. 11; [0075]) (annotated FIG. 10, below), among edges of the first vent holes (24e and 24f; annotated FIG. 11, above).11 and 12
PNG
media_image4.png
468
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first heat dissipation fin (29a) is bent in a U shape toward an inside of the first vent hole (24e and 24f).13
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho and Yokawa before him/her would have recognized that changes in shape of the plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa is significant. Please, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the first heat dissipation fin (29a) is a part of one edge (annotated FIG. 11, above) of the first vent hole (24e and 24f). 14
But Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first heat dissipation fin (24e and 24f) is bent toward an inside of the first vent hole and has a "U" shaped cross-section (24e and 24f). 15
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho and Yokawa before him/her would have recognized that changes in shape of the plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa are an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the plurality of first heat dissipation fins (29a) of Cho in view of Yokawa is significant. Please, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the cover shield (500) includes a plurality of second vent holes (first annotated FIG. 2, above) and a plurality of second heat dissipation fins (first annotated FIG. 2, above).
Regarding claim 15 ,Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 14, wherein the second vent hole is configured by an opening cut while forming the second heat dissipation fin because there is no structural difference in the plurality of second vent holes of Cho in view of Yokawa based on when and/or how they are formed with respect to the formation of the second plurality of heat dissipation fins of Cho in view of Yokawa.16
Regarding claim 16, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 14, wherein the second heat dissipation fin (first annotated FIG. 2, above) is disposed on an edge disposed to be perpendicular (first annotated FIG. 2, above) to an edge (first annotated FIG. 2, above) of the cover shield (500), among edges of the second vent holes fins (first annotated FIG. 2, above).17 and 18
Regarding claim 17, Cho in view of Yokawa discloses, The display device (FIG. 1) according to claim 1, wherein, the cover shield (500) includes a third opening (second annotated FIG. 2, below), and an integrated circuit chip (integrated circuit chip (123); FIG. 2; [0043] and [0044]) included in the printed circuit board (172 and/or 174) is exposed from the cover shield (500) through the third opening (second annotated FIG. 2, below).19
PNG
media_image5.png
646
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yokawa and further in view of US 2022/0052034 A1 (Chi).
Regarding claim 3, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the light emitting element includes a micro-light emitting diode.
However, in analogous art, Chi discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that micro-light emitting diodes have the advantages of relatively high light-emitting brightness and relatively low power consumption ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho, Yokawa, and Chi before him/her that the light emitting element (Cho, [0039]) of Cho in view of Yokawa includes a micro-light emitting diode, as taught by Chi, to take advantage of the relatively high light-emitting brightness and relatively low power consumption of micro-light emitting diodes, as also taught by Chi.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yokawa and further in view of US 2021/0201837 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 4, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising:
a gate driver which is mounted between the plurality of sub pixels in a gate in active area (GIA) manner.20
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a gate driver which is mounted between a plurality of sub pixels improves open ratio on pixel circuits and light transmittance of a display ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho, Yokawa, and Kuo before him/her to have a gate driver which is mounted between the plurality of sub pixels (Cho, [0038]) of Cho in view of Yokawa, as disclosed by Kuo, to improve the open ratio on pixel circuits and light transmittance of display panel (100) of Cho in view of Yokawa, as also disclosed by Kuo.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yokawa and further in view of US 2022/0059644 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 23, Cho in view of Yokawa does not appear to explicitly disclose, A tiling display device comprising a plurality of display units, wherein each of the display units comprises the display device according to claim 1.
However, in analogous art, Kim discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a tiling display device (tiling display device (TD); FIG. 1; [0036]) may be implemented by connecting a plurality of display units (plurality of display units (100); FIG. 1; [0005], [0036], and [0037]) to increase a display area in which an image is displayed ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Cho, Yokawa, and Kim before him/her to implement a tiling display device comprising a plurality of units, wherein each of the display units comprises the display device (FIG. 1) of Cho in view of Yokawa, according to claim 1, as taught by Kim, to increase a display area in which an image is displayed, as also taught by Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
KR20060041598A (Lee)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a display device (FIG. 1) includes a display panel (100) having an active area and a non-active area (300) adjacent to the active area and a cover bottom (150) which supports the display panel (100) on a rear surface of the display panel (100). Also discloses a plate bottom (200), a printed circuit board disposed on a rear surface of the plate bottom (200), and a cover shield (400) disposed to cover the printed circuit board on a rear surface of the cover bottom (150). Additionally discloses a plurality of first vent holes (210) in a part of the plate bottom (200) and a plurality of second vent holes (410).
US 6,292,157 B1 (Greene)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it was desirable to develop methods for tiling display devices to overcome manufacturing and assembly limitations (Col. 1, lines 56-58).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
2 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
3 The recitation of “to transmit a signal to the plurality of sub pixels” does not differentiate apparatus claim 5 from the prior art because it is a manner of operating the display device of Cho in view of Yokawa. Please see, MPEP 2114(II)
4 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
5 Please see the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 5 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
6 Please see the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 7 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
7 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
8 Please see the objection to claim 9, above, for how this recited language of claim 9 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
9 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
10 Please see the objection to claim 10, above, for how this recited language of claim 10 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
11 Please see the objection to claim 11, above, for how this recited language of claim 11 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
12 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
13 Please see the objection to claim 12, above, for how this recited language of claim 12 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
14 Please see the objection to claim 13, above, for how this recited language of claim 13 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
15 Please see the objection to claim 13, above, for how this recited language of claim 13 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
16 Please see the objection to claim 15, above, for how this recited language of claim 15 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
17 Please see the objection to claim 16, above, for how this recited language of claim 16 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
18 See, paragraph [0023] of the specification regarding the meaning of disposed.
19 See, paragraph [0020] of the specification regarding the meaning of included.
20 Please see the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 4 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
Prosecution Insights