CTNF 18/683,224 CTNF 77428 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears the first sentence is unnecessary, and it is suggested, “The display module includes…”, be changed to read, “A display module and display device including...”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “Display Module and Display Device With Light-Shielding Layer on First Cover Plate”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2009/0015901 A1) . Regarding claims 1-10, 12, 13, 19 and 20: re claim 1, Yamada discloses a display module comprising: an array substrate D (Fig. 1 and [0042]) comprising a base substrate 10 (Fig. 2 and [0043]); a first cover plate 62 (Fig. 1 and [0052]) on a light-emitting side of the array substrate; a second cover plate 64 (Fig. 1 and [0052]) on a side of the first cover plate away from the array substrate; and a first light-shielding layer 40 (Figs. 1, 2 and [0049]) on a side of the first cover plate 62 close to the array substrate D, wherein an orthographic projection of the first light-shielding layer 40 (Figs. 1-2) on the base substrate 10 falls within an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 62 on the base substrate, and the first light-shielding layer is arranged around an edge of the first cover plate; re claim 2, the display module according to claim 1, wherein the first light-shielding layer 40 (Fig. 1) is annular in shape and is arranged around four edges of the first cover plate 62, the array substrate comprises a display region A1 (Figs. 1-2 and [0042]), and an orthographic projection of the display region A1 on the base substrate 10 does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding layer 40 on the base substrate; re claim 3, the display module according to claim 1, wherein the array substrate further comprises a second light-shielding layer 21 (Fig. 2 and [0046]) and a display region ( in Fig. 2, element 17 and all elements within “17” ), the second light-shielding layer 21 is arranged at least around a boundary of the display region (Fig. 3), and an orthographic projection of the second light-shielding layer 21 (Fig. 2) on the base substrate 10 falls within an orthographic projection of the display region ( note overlap of “21” and “17” in Fig. 2 ) on the base substrate 10; re claim 4, the display module according to claim 3, wherein a thickness of the first light-shielding layer 40 is greater than a thickness of the second light-shielding layer 21 (Fig. 2); re claim 5, the display module according to claim 3, wherein the first light-shielding layer 40 ( [0049], e.g., black paint typically comprises resin ) and the second light-shielding layer 21 ( [0046, 0079], wherein light-shielding layers are typically black resin or black matrix ) are selected from one of: an ink, a black conductive glue, a black resin, a stacked structure comprising at least two color filter layers of different colors; re claim 6, the display module according to claim 1, wherein the first light-shielding layer 40 is arranged around four edges of the first cover plate 62 (Fig. 1), the array substrate comprises a display region ( in Fig. 2, element 21 and all elements encompassed by “21” ), and an orthographic projection of the display region on the base substrate 10 partially overlaps with the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding layer 40 on the base substrate ( i.e., “40” overlaps with “21” in Fig. 2 ); re claim 7, the display module according to claim 6, wherein the first light-shielding layer 40 comprises a first portion ( overlapping with “21” in Fig. 2 ) and a second portion ( portion not overlapping “21” in Fig. 2 ), an orthographic projection of the first portion on the base substrate 10 falls within the orthographic projection of the display region ( element 21 and all elements encompassed by “21” ) on the base substrate, an orthographic projection of the second portion on the base substrate does not overlap with the orthographic projection of the display region on the base substrate, and a thickness of the first portion is smaller than a thickness of the second portion ( i.e., a thickness in the horizontal direction of Fig. 2 ); re claim 8, the display module according to claim 1, further comprising an adhesive ( inherently between “62” and “64” in Figs. 1-2 and [0052 ) and a fixture 20 (Fig. 2 and [0043]), wherein, the second cover plate 64 comprises a first surface facing the first cover plate 62 (Fig. 1), a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface, the [inherent] adhesive is disposed on [a region near] the side surface of the second cover plate 64, and the second cover plate 64 is adhered to the fixture 20 via the [inherent] adhesive ( i.e., without the inherent adhesive, the second cover plate 64 cannot be connected to the first cover plate 62, which is connected to the fixture 20 ), and a part of a surface of the first cover plate 62 away from the array substrate is in contact with the [inherent] adhesive, and the first cover plate 62 is adhered to the second cover plate 64 via the [inherent] adhesive; re claim 9, the display module according to claim 8, wherein an orthographic projection of the [inherent] adhesive on the base substrate 10 (Fig. 2) falls within the orthographic projection of the first light-shielding layer 40 on the base substrate 10 ( i.e., the inherent adhesive overlaps layer “40” ); re claim 10, the display module according to claim 8, wherein an orthographic projection of the [inherent] adhesive on the base substrate 10 (Fig. 2) falls within an orthographic projection of the fixture 20 on the base substrate ( i.e., the inherent adhesive overlaps the fixture “20” ); re claim 12, the display module according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the second cover plate 64 is smaller than a thickness of the first cover plate 40 (Fig. 2); re claim 13, the display module according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the first cover plate 62 and the second cover plate 64 (Fig. 2) is smaller than a distance between the first cover plate 62 and the array substrate; re claim 19, the display module according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the second cover plate 64 (Figs. 1-2) on the base substrate 10 falls within the orthographic projection of the first cover plate 62 on the base substrate; and re claim 20, A display device 3000 (Fig. 20) comprising the display module according to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are anticipated by Yamada . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada . Regarding claim 11: Yamada anticipates claim 1 and further discloses the display module is incorporated into a mobile phone. Although Yamada does not specify exactly how the display module of claim 1 is incorporated as the screen in the mobile phone, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically mount the display module in the flipping fixture of the mobile phone 3000 (Fig. 20) such that edges of the first cover plate 62 and the second cover plate 64 are in direct contact with the fixture because mounting in such a manner would ensure the display module fits neatly into the flip fixture of the mobile phone. Regarding claims 14 and 15: Yamada anticipates claim 1 and further disclose the second cover plate 64 (Fig. 1) comprises a first surface facing the first cover plate 62, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface, the first cover plate 62 comprises a third surface facing the array substrate D (Fig. 1), a fourth surface opposite to the third surface, and a side surface connecting the third surface and the fourth surface, and a roughness of the side surface of the second cover plate is greater than a roughness of the side surface of the first cover plate; and wherein a roughness of the third surface of the first cover plate is greater than a roughness of the fourth surface of the first cover plate . Although Yamada is silent with respect to roughness of any surfaces, the current claims are deemed obvious because the first cover plate 62 is made of glass [0062], and it would have been obvious make the side surface of the glass cover plate 62 smooth to ensure the display module can neatly fit into a display device ( e.g., a mobile phone 3000 in Fig. 20 ). Also, the second cover plate 64 comprises a film 641 [0052], which would not require a side surface to be as smooth as glass because it’s relatively thin and a small roughness wouldn’t affect the mounting of the display module into a mobile phone. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughen a portion of the third surface that will be adhered to the light-shielding layer 40 because a roughened surface would significantly improve adhesion strength when bonding the first cover plate 62 to the light-shielding layer 40. Therefore, claims 14 and 15 are deemed obvious over Yamada . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Saito et al. (US 2001/0052960 A1, hereinafter, “ Saito ”) . Regarding claim 16: Yamada anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose a bonding region. Saito teaches a array substrate comprising a bonding region ( in Fig. 6B, bonding region for FPC ), the bonding region is provided with a bonding electrode ( i.e., a bonding electrode/pad for FPC in Fig. 6B and [0061] ), and an orthographic projection of a first cover plate USUB (Fig. 6B and [0041]) on a base substrate does not overlap with an orthographic projection of the bonding electrode on the base substrate ( USUB leaves room for FPC in Fig. 6B ), and orthographic projection of a second cover plate WG (Fig. 6B and [0061]) on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with the orthographic projection of the bonding electrode on the base substrate ( i.e., WG overlaps the bonding region where FPC bonds to DSUB in Fig. 6B ). Saito discloses such a structure allows a display module to be incorporated into a projection display device (Fig. 7 and [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada by incorporating a bonding region, as taught by Saito, because the modification would allow the display module to be incorporated into a projection display device. Regarding claim 17: Yamada (in view of Saito) discloses wherein the first light-shielding layer comprises a first section, a second section, a third section and a fourth section connected end to end, a distance between an orthographic projection of the first section on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the bonding electrode on the base substrate is less than distances between orthographic projections of the second section, the third section, and the fourth section on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the bonding electrode on the base substrate, respectively, and wherein a width of the first section along a first direction is smaller than a width of the third section along the first direction, and the width of the first section along the first direction is smaller than widths of the second section and the fourth section along a second direction, the first direction intersects with the second direction ( i.e., the current claim essentially describes the structure in Fig. 3 of the current drawings, and in comparison, Saito discloses a similar structure in Figs. 6A-6B; accordingly, Yamada in view of Saito renders the current claim obvious, especially because “a width” as currently claimed can be any chosen/desired width, i.e., “a width” doesn’t require the maximum width or “an entire width” ); and Regarding claim 18: Yamada (in view of Saito) does not disclose a lens; however, Saito further discloses, when a display module is incorporated into a projection display device, a lens will be present, wherein the lens FLN (Fig. 7 and [0064]) is slightly larger than a display panel of the display module. Therefore, when Yamada’s device is modified as taught by Saito, the device further comprises a lens on a side of the second cover plate away from the first cover plate, wherein, the lens FLN comprises a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in a direction perpendicular to a main optical axis of the lens, an orthographic projection of the first end on the base substrate falls outside an orthographic projection of the second cover plate DSUB (Fig. 6B and 7 of Saito) on the base substrate but falls within the orthographic projection of the first cover plate WG (Fig. 6B and Fig. 7 of Saito) on the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the second end on the base substrate falls outside the orthographic projection of the second cover plate DSUB on the base substrate but falls within the orthographic projection of the first cover plate WG on the base substrate. Therefore, Yamada modified by Saito renders the current claim obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM). 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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. /LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/683,224 Page 2 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/683,224 Page 3 Art Unit: 2892 Application/Control Number: 18/683,224 Page 4 Art Unit: 2892
Prosecution Insights