DETAILED ACTION
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.
inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 2017/0344053 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3 and 6, Kim discloses:
A display panel (Figs. 2 and 7B), comprising:
a cover plate (Fig. 7B; 1211 and/or 1270) and a display module (Fig. 7B; 1214/1219 and/or 1211); wherein
the cover plate is located on a light-exiting side of the display module (Fig. 7B; light emitting side shown upward);
an optical film (Fig. 7B; 1290) is provided on a back surface of the display module and/or a sidewall of the display module;
an encapsulant (Fig. 2 100 is equivalent to Fig. 7B 1200; 300) is provided at an edge of the display module to encapsulate the edge of the display module with the cover plate; and
the optical film causes a light reflection intensity at the back surface of the display module to be different from a light reflection intensity at the sidewall of the display module (para 0167-0170; 1290 is a metal material having reflection characteristics).
(claims 2 and 6) Fig. 7B; 1290, para 0167-0170.
(claim 3) Fig. 7B in view of Fig. 2; 1290 shown at bottommost layer.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses:
A display panel, comprising a display panel (Figs. 2 and 7B), wherein the display panel comprises:
a cover plate (Fig. 7B; 1211 and/or 1270) and a display module (Fig. 7B; 1214/1219 and/or 1211); wherein
the cover plate is located on a light-exiting side of the display module (Fig. 7B; light emitting side shown upward);
an optical film (Fig. 7B; 1290) is provided on a back surface of the display module and/or a sidewall of the display module;
an encapsulant (Fig. 2 100 is equivalent to Fig. 7B 1200; 300) is provided at an edge of the display module to encapsulate the edge of the display module with the cover plate; and
the optical film causes a light reflection intensity at the back surface of the display module to be different from a light reflection intensity at the sidewall of the display module (para 0167-0170; 1290 is a metal material having reflection characteristics).
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.
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2017/0344053 A1.
Regarding claim 7, although Kim does not specifically disclose “wherein a reflectivity of the reflective layer is greater than 95%”, Kim does disclose, in para 0167, “the metal material having a reflection characteristic of a predetermined level or more”. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to the claimed reflectivity to be greater than 95% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 13 and 14, although Kim does not specifically disclose “(claim 8) wherein the optical film comprises a light-absorbing layer; (claim 13) wherein the light-absorbing layer is doped with black light-absorbing particles; (claim 14) wherein a base material of the light-absorbing layer comprises an organic polymer material”, Kim does disclose, in para 0165, “there is no limit in material as long as the material can protect the organic light emitting element layer and can be formed as a thin film”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optical film material such that it is light absorbing to meet the requirements of Kim’s disclosure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Lesbin, 125 USPQ 416.
(claim 9) Fig. 7B in view of Fig. 2; 1290 shown at bottommost layer.
Regarding claim 15, although Kim does not specifically disclose “wherein a thickness of the optical film ranges from 2um to 3um”; Kim does disclose, in para 0164, preferred thicknesses for the optical film 1290. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the claimed thickness range of the optical film since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2017/0344053 A1 in view of Chung et al. US 2018/0175125 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kim does not disclose:
(claims 10 and 11) wherein the optical film covering the back surface of the display module is provided with a plurality of opening structures in a display region of the display panel.
Chung disclose a publication from a similar field of endeavor in which:
(claims 10 and 11) wherein the optical film (326) covering the back surface of the display module is provided with a plurality of opening structures (O) in a display region of the display panel (320) (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ openings as shown in Chung within the display region/panel of Kim to expose sensor regions at the backend to passing light. Such a feature would be applicable to use in a fingerprint sensor or other sensor application employing a display panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 12 16 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or clearly suggest the limitations of claim 4 stating “wherein the reflective layer covers at least a part of the back surface of the display module and covers the sidewall of the display module”; of claim 5 stating “wherein a side of the display panel is bent toward the back surface of the display module; and the reflective layer covers the sidewall of the display module”; of claim 12 stating “wherein a side of the display panel is bent toward the back surface of the display module; and the light-absorbing layer covers the sidewall of the display module”; and of claim 16 stating “wherein the display module comprises a display functional structure and a supporting layer; the display functional structure is located between the cover plate and the supporting layer; and the optical film is provided on the sidewall of the display module and/or a surface of the supporting layer facing away from the display functional structure”. In light of these limitations, the prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERROL V FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)270-7433. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERROL V FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, AU 2893
Prosecution Insights