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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang (CN 115497384A).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang teaches a display device in fig. 1, comprising:
a first display panel (refer to left side panel 20 as shown in fig. 1), comprising a first substrate (211), a first display layer (refer to left side 212) , and a first optical layer (refer to left side 22) stacked sequentially, the first optical layer (22) comprising at least one first optical film (refer to left side 22); and
a second display panel (refer to right side 20), arranged adjacent to the first display panel (refer to left side 20) in a first direction (refer to horizontal direction or x-axis direction) and comprising a second substrate (refer to right side 211), a second display layer (refer to right side 212), and a second optical layer (refer to right side 22) stacked sequentially, the second optical layer (refer to right side 22) comprising at least one second optical film (refer to right side 22), wherein
the first display panel (refer to left side 20) and the second display panel (refer to right side 20) respectively have a first end surface (refer to left side 221) and a second end surface (refer to right side 221) facing each other, a first portion of the first end surface (refer to left side 2211) is located at an end of the first optical layer, and a second portion of the second end surface (refer to right side 2211) is located at an end of the second optical layer; and
the first portion (refer to left side 2211) and the second portion (refer to right side 2211) are not in contact with each other and are separated at least by a predetermined gap (refer to notation G1 below) in the first direction, the first end surface and the second end surface (refer to left and right ends of 211) are in direct or indirect contact or separated by an intermediate gap (refer to notation G2 below) at a closest point in the first direction, and the predetermined gap is larger than the intermediate gap (see notation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Xiang teaches all the limitation of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Xiang teaches a first encapsulation adhesive layer (refer to left side 213) is provided between the first optical layer (refer to left side 22) and the first display layer (refer to left side 212), and a second encapsulation adhesive layer (refer to right side 213) is provided between the second optical layer (refer to right side 22) and the second display layer (refer to right side 212);
a third portion of the first end surface is located at an end of the first encapsulation adhesive layer (refer to sidewall of the left side 213), and a fourth portion of the second end surface (refer to sidewall of the right side 213) is located at an end of the second encapsulation adhesive layer; and the third portion and the fourth portion are at least partially not in contact with each other in the first direction (see notation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
531
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 1 of Xiang teaches a front surface of the first optical layer (refer to upper surface of 22) opposite to the first substrate (211) is retracted in the first direction (refer to x-axis or horizontal direction) relative to a bottom surface of the first optical layer (refer to the bottom surface of 22) facing the first substrate (refer to 211).
Regarding claim 12, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 1 of Xiang teaches a fifth portion of the first end surface is located at an end of the first substrate (refer to an sidewall portion of left side 211); and the first portion (refer to left side 2211) has a step difference with at least a part of the fifth portion in the first direction, so that the first end surface at least partially forms a stepped structure.
Regarding claim 13, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 1 of Xiang teaches a maximum gap between the first end surface and the second end surface in the first direction is located between a top edge of the first portion opposite to the first substrate and a top edge of the second portion opposite to the second substrate (NOTE: G1 is the biggest gap as compared to G2).
Regarding claim 14, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 1 of Xiang teaches a fifth portion of the first end surface is located at an end of the first substrate (refer to the end portion of the left side 211), a sixth portion of the second end surface (refer to the end portion of the right side 211) is located at an end of the second substrate, and the intermediate gap is located between the fifth portion and the sixth portion (refer to G2), or the fifth portion and the sixth portion are in direct or indirect contact with each other.
Regarding claim 15, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, fig. 1 of Xiang teaches the intermediate gap (refer to G2) is located between a bottom edge of the fifth portion opposite to the first optical layer (refer to left side 211) and a bottom edge of the sixth portion opposite to the second optical layer (refer to right side 211), or the bottom edge of the fifth portion opposite to the first optical layer and the bottom edge of the sixth portion opposite to the second optical layer are in direct or indirect contact with each other (see notation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN 115497384 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng (US 20220059608).
Regarding claim 3, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Xiang teaches first display layer comprises a plurality of first light-emitting units (212) arranged on the first substrate (211); and in the first direction (refer to x axis direction), a pixel spacing is located between adjacent display units defined based on a configuration of the first light-emitting unit (see fig. 1).
Xiang does not teach the predetermined gap is not larger than 12% of the pixel spacing.
However, there is no evidence indicating “predetermined gap is not larger than 12% of the pixel spacing” is critical and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tseng teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the predetermined gap (refer to G3) is much smaller than the pixel spacing (G2) (see par. 32-34 and fig. 1B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the predetermined gap is selected range much smaller than the pixel spacing as taught by Tseng in the teaching of Xiang in order to reduce the interference between micro light emitting diode modules to avoid the h human eyes from perceiving the gap, the spliced micro light-emitting-diode display panel (see par. 34).
PNG
media_image3.png
743
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the predetermined gap is not larger than 0.15 mm.
Tseng teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the predetermined gap (refer to G3) is not larger than the first spacing (G1) (see par. 34). Herein, the first gap G1 is, for example, 100 μm to 150 μm. Thus, G3 is inherently not larger than 150 μm (as equivalent as 0.150 mm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the predetermined gap is not larger than 0.15 mm as taught by Tseng in the teaching of Xiang in order to reduce the interference between micro light emitting diode modules to avoid the h human eyes from perceiving the gap, the spliced micro light-emitting-diode display panel (see par. 34).
Regarding claim 5, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the predetermined gap is larger than 0.03 mm.
Tseng teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the predetermined gap (refer to G3) is not larger than the first spacing (G1) (see par. 34). Herein, the first gap G1 is, for example, 100 μm to 150 μm. Thus, G3 is inherently larger than 0.03 mm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the predetermined gap is larger than 0.03 mm as taught by Tseng in the teaching of Xiang in order to reduce the interference between micro light emitting diode modules to avoid the h human eyes from perceiving the gap, the spliced micro light-emitting-diode display panel (see par. 34).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN 115497384 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu ((KR 20220097570A).
Regarding claim 9, Xiang teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the first end surface has a first inclined surface; and the first inclined surface at least partially extends to the first portion, so that the first optical layer is retracted in the first direction relative to at least a part of the first substrate.
Ryu teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein the first end surface has a first inclined surface; and the first inclined surface at least partially extends to the first portion, so that the first optical layer (refer to one of the layers of CWL) is retracted in the first direction relative to at least a part of the first substrate (refer to SUB) (see fig. 12’s notation below).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the first end surface has a first inclined surface; and the first inclined surface at least partially extends to the first portion, so that the first optical layer is retracted in the first direction relative to at least a part of the first substrate as taught by Ryu in the teaching of Xiang so that the image is prevented from being cut off in the gap between the plurality of display devices of the tile-type display device in the lit state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “a fifth portion of the first end surface is located at an end of the first substrate; and the display device further comprises a first spacer at least partially connected to the fifth portion, and the first end surface and the second end surface are in indirect contact through the first spacer.” Claims 7-8 include all the limitations of claim 6.
Claim 10 is 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “a fifth portion of the first end surface is located at an end of the first substrate, and the first end surface has a first inclined surface extending from the first portion to at least a part of the fifth portion; and a distance between the first inclined surface and the second end surface at the first portion is greater than that at the fifth portion.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights