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 6/6/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0036257).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel (20)
a panel lower member (30) including a heat dissipation adhesive layer and disposed on a rear surface of the display panel (20)
the heat dissipation adhesive layer includes a first coating layer (320), a heat dissipation layer (330) disposed on the first coating layer (320), and a second coating layer (340) covering the heat dissipation layer (330)
an upper surface of the second coating layer (340) is a flat surface
PNG
media_image1.png
320
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a shielding layer (310); an adhesive layer (352) disposed on the shielding layer, and a buffer layer (353) disposed on the adhesive layer, and the heat dissipation adhesive (320/330/340) layer is disposed on the buffer layer (353).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0036257) in view of Yin et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0164139).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method of manufacturing a heat dissipation adhesive layer for a display device, comprising:
providing a liner (310), a first coating layer (320) on the liner (310), and a heat dissipation layer (330) on the first coating layer (320), and forming a second coating (340)
Lee is silent regarding forming a mask dam surrounding the heat dissipation layer; and forming a second coating layer inside the mask dam. However, Yin discloses forming a mask dam (112) and forming a coating layer (12) inside the mask dam (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Lee to include formation of a mask dam, as taught by Yin, since it can prevent curling of the heat dissipation layer during the cutting process (paragraph 39), thereby improving yield during subsequent bonding to the display (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the heat dissipation layer (330) includes a body portion (330) and an opening hole (OP) penetrating through the body portion (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the second coating layer (340) fills the opening hole (OP) (paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses an upper surface of the second coating layer includes a ridge portion (340) overlapping the body portion and a valley portion (OP) overlapping the opening hole (penetrating hole OP).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses a height difference between the ridge portion and the valley portion is 5 μm or less (paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses a second coating layer (42) which includes a flat portion and a sloped portion disposed on one side of the flat portion (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Yin discloses cutting (143) the second coating layer along an inner side of the mask dam (13) (paragraph 20). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 9, Yin discloses a cutting line (143) of the second coating layer overlaps the flat portion (113) of the second coating layer (Figure 7). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 10, Yin discloses an upper surface of the second coating layer (141) is higher than an upper surface of the mask dam (13). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 11, Yin discloses the second coating layer (141) covers at least a portion of the upper surface of the mask dam (13) (Figure 7). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 12, Yin discloses a thickness of the mask dam (13) is greater than or equal to a thickness of the second coating layer (12) (Figure 7). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 13, Yin discloses mask dam (13 or 12) is directly disposed on an upper surface of the first coating layer (111 or 112). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 14, Yin discloses the mask dam (13) is directly disposed on an upper surface of the liner (112), and surrounds the first coating layer (111). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Regarding claim 15, Yin discloses an inner side surface of the mask dam (13) is spaced apart from a side surface of the first coating layer (111). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lee in view of Yin.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0036257) in view of Yin et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0164139), and further in view of Park et al. (US Publication No. 2022/0209167).
Regarding claim 7, Lee/Yin discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above. Lee/Yin does not disclose an upper surface of the second coating layer includes a ridge portion and a valley portion positioned at a lower level than the ridge portion, and in the flat portion, a height difference between the ridge portion and the valley portion is 5 μm or less. However, Park discloses ridge (313e) and valley (313a) portions of a coating (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coating of Lee to include the ridge and valley portions, as taught by Park, since it can prevent production of air bubbles between the backplate and cushion plate (paragraph 121). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing to have modified the height difference of the ridge and valley portions to be within this range of thickness of the second coating, since prevent air bubbles while minimizing thickness of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0036257) in view of Park et al. (US Publication No. 2022/0209167).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Lee does not disclose the upper surface of the second coating layer includes a ridge portion and a valley portion, and the ridge portion is positioned at a higher level than the valley portion. However, Park discloses ridge (313e) and valley (313a) portions of a coating (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coating of Lee to include the ridge and valley portions, as taught by Park, since it can prevent production of air bubbles between the backplate and cushion plate (paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 18, Lee/Park discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above. Lee/Park is silent regarding a height difference between the ridge portion and the valley portion is 10% or less of a thickness of the second coating layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing to have modified the height difference of the ridge and valley portions to be within this percentage range of thickness of the second coating, since prevent air bubbles while minimizing thickness of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Lee/Park discloses the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 17 above. Lee/Park is silent regarding a height difference between the ridge portion and the valley portion is 5 um or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing to have modified the height difference of the ridge and valley portions to be within this range of thickness of the second coating, since prevent air bubbles while minimizing thickness of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US Patent No. 11,562,965) discloses a sloped coating layer surrounding a heat dissipation substrate (220) (Figures 1 and 4). Son et al. (US Publication No. 2012/0313499) discloses a dam (132) for a layer (111) (Figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R PRASAD whose telephone number is (571) 270-3129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/N.R.P/ 6/15/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights