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 .
Title
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 10 shows LM comprises PCB, but this is not consistent with the specification and other figures. This is also inconsistent with claim 14 which claims a driving board PCB disposed on the bottom surface of the lower module LM.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“wherein the upper module comprises: a support film… a cover panel…” in claim 20. However, Fig. 6 shows the lower module LM comprises support film 400 and cover panel 500 and not the upper module UM.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “the curvature of the second surface and a curvature of the third surface are identical to each other”. However, claim 1 claimed that third surface is flat. Thus, it’s impossible for the third surface to also have a curvature identical to the second surface. Claim 5 is considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the upper module comprises: a support film disposed on the second surface of the display panel; and a cover panel disposed on the support film, wherein the cover panel has a dome shape and includes a bottom surface which is flat.”. There is no support that shows upper module comprises those elements. Thus, there is a lack of written description. Based on the specification and drawing, it appears it should have been the lower module instead. In order to provide compact prosecution, examiner will consider the limitation is for the lower module instead.
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 1-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 10,120,410; hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a display device (300D, Figs. 6A, 6B; 100, Fig. 3A) comprising:
a cover window (130 and/or 140) comprising a first surface (bottom surface of 130 and/or 140);
a display panel (120) disposed on the first surface; and
a cover panel (110) disposed on the display panel, and comprising:
a second surface (top surface of 110) facing the cover window; and
a third surface (bottom surface of 110) disposed on an opposite side of the second surface,
wherein the first surface and the second surface are curved (top surface of 110 curved as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B), and the third surface is flat (bottom surface of 110 is flat as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses the display device of claim 1, and Yamazaki further discloses wherein the display panel is curved along the first surface (120 curved along bottom surface of 140 as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses the display device of claim 1, and Yamazaki further discloses wherein a curvature of the first surface and a curvature of the second surface are identical to each other (identical as shown in Figs. 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki discloses the display device of claim 1, and Yamazaki further discloses a driving board (111 can be considered as a driving board, Figs. 3A) disposed on the third surface, wherein the driving board is flat along the third surface (such as top flat surface of 111, Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki discloses the display device of claim 12, and Yamazaki further discloses a circuit component (circuit component on 111, such as 10, 111R in Fig. 3A) disposed on the driving board, wherein the circuit component is disposed on a flat surface (on flat surface of 111 in Fig. 3A) of the driving board.
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 3. Yamazaki does not teach wherein a radius of curvature of the first surface is 100 millimeters to 200 millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radius of curvature of the first surface is 100 millimeters to 200 millimeters in Yamazaki, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, find an optimum radius of curvature that is reliable and easy for the user to see can be done through routine experimentation, and this radius does not yield any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 1. Yamazaki does not teach wherein an outermost thickness of the cover panel is smaller than a central thickness of the cover panel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an outermost thickness of the cover panel is smaller than a central thickness of the cover panel in Yamazaki, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, having thicker center provide stronger support for the curve display device, and this yields predict results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, and further in view of Bi et al. (US 12,585,314; hereinafter “Bi”).
Regarding claims 6-8, Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 1. Yamazaki does not teach wherein the cover panel comprises: a buffer layer disposed on the display panel; a bonding layer disposed on the buffer layer; and a support layer disposed on the bonding layer, and comprising a fourth surface facing the cover window, and a fifth surface disposed on an opposite side of the fourth surface,
wherein the fourth surface is curved, and the fifth surface is flat; wherein the support layer includes at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polysulfone, polymethylmethacrylate, triacetylcellulose or cycloolefin polymer; wherein the buffer layer and the bonding layer are curved along a shape of the fourth surface. However, Bi teaches a cover panel (600, 700, 300 and/or 800, Figs. 10, 15) comprises: a buffer layer (600, 700 and/or 300, Fig. 10) disposed on a display panel (200, Fig. 10); a bonding layer (801, Fig. 15) disposed on the buffer layer (can refer back to 800 in Fig. 10); and a support layer (802 of 800, Fig. 15) disposed on the bonding layer, and comprising a fourth surface (top surface of 802 of 800) facing a cover window (102, 400 and/or 500, Fig. 10), and a fifth surface (bottom surface of 802 of 800) disposed on an opposite side of the fourth surface, wherein the fourth surface is curved (top curve portion of 800, Figs. 9, 10), and the fifth surface is flat (flat bottom portion of 800 in Fig. 10), wherein the support layer includes polyethylene terephthalate (col. 13, lns. 22-24: “…cushion layer 802 is a film layer structure made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET).”); wherein the buffer layer and the bonding layer are curved along a shape of the fourth surface (as shown in Figs. 9 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover panel comprises: a buffer layer disposed on the display panel; a bonding layer disposed on the buffer layer; and a support layer disposed on the bonding layer, and comprising a fourth surface facing the cover window, and a fifth surface disposed on an opposite side of the fourth surface,
wherein the fourth surface is curved, and the fifth surface is flat; wherein the support layer includes at least one of polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polysulfone, polymethylmethacrylate, triacetylcellulose or cycloolefin polymer; wherein the buffer layer and the bonding layer are curved along a shape of the fourth surface in Yamazaki, as taught by Bi, in order to provide a reliable support to spread the bending stress of the display panel.
Regarding claims 9-10, Yamazaki in view of Bi teaches the display device of claim 6. Yamazaki does not teach wherein the cover panel further comprises at least one of a cover spacer and a heat dissipation layer disposed on the fifth surface, and the cover spacer and the heat dissipation layer have a flat shape; wherein the heat dissipation layer includes at least one of copper, silver, gold, aluminum, nickel, stainless, graphite, or carbon nanotubes. Bi further teaches wherein the cover panel (600, 700, 300 and/or 800, Figs. 10, 15) further comprises at least one of a cover spacer (700, Fig. 10) and a heat dissipation layer (300, Fig. 10) disposed on the fifth surface (700 and 300 on 5th surface of 800), and the cover spacer and the heat dissipation layer have a flat shape (majority portion is flat shape as shown in Fig. 9); wherein the heat dissipation layer includes at least one of copper, silver, gold, aluminum, nickel, stainless, graphite, or carbon nanotubes (col. 12, lns. 62-63: “… copper foil or other metals…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cover panel further comprises at least one of a cover spacer and a heat dissipation layer disposed on the fifth surface, and the cover spacer and the heat dissipation layer have a flat shape; wherein the heat dissipation layer includes at least one of copper, silver, gold, aluminum, nickel, stainless, graphite, or carbon nanotubes in Yamazaki in view of Bi, as taught by Bi, in order to provide further cushion and dissipate heat from the display panel.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0215976; hereinafter “Choi”) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 10,120,410; hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 14-16, Choi teaches a display device Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a display panel (210~280 of DP, Figs. 2, 4);
an upper module (300 of DP, Figs. 2, 4) disposed on a first surface (top surface of 210~280, Fig. 4; can refer to top surface of DP in Fig. 2) of the display panel;
a cover window (CW, Fig. 2) disposed on the upper module, and having a dome shape (CW is convex dome shape in Fig. 2; [0112]);
a lower module (CP, Fig. 2) having a dome-shaped and disposed on a second surface (bottom surface of 210~280, Fig. 4; can refer to bottom surface of DP in Fig. 2) of the display panel opposite to the first surface, and including a bottom surface (bottom surface of CP, Fig. 2); and
a driving board (same as FPC, Fig. 2) disposed on the bottom surface of the lower module (FPC below CP as shown in Fig. 2).
Choi does not teach the bottom surface which is flat; wherein the driving board is flat along the bottom surface of the lower module; a circuit component disposed on the driving board, wherein the circuit component is disposed on a flat surface of the driving board. However, Yamazaki teaches a lower module having a curve top surface (top surface of 110 in Figs. 6A, 6B) and a bottom surface which is flat (bottom surface of 110 in Figs. 6A, 6B); wherein a driving board (same as 111, Fig. 3A) is flat along the bottom surface of the lower module (along flat surface of 110 in Fig. 3A); a circuit component (see circuit components on top of 111 in Fig. 3A) disposed on the driving board, wherein the circuit component is disposed on a flat surface of the driving board (circuit elements on flat surface of 111 in Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bottom surface which is flat; wherein the driving board is flat along the bottom surface of the lower module; a circuit component disposed on the driving board, wherein the circuit component is disposed on a flat surface of the driving board in Choi, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to provide a stable rigid flat surface for the driving board and prevent cracking of circuit components.
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 15, and Choi further teaches wherein the display panel is curved along a shape of the cover window (see Fig. 2; note display panel is in DP).
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 15, and Choi further teaches wherein the upper module is curved along a shape of the cover window (see Fig. 2; note upper module is in DP).
Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 18. Choi does not teach wherein the upper module comprises: an anti-reflection layer disposed on one surface of the display panel; and an adhesive layer disposed on the anti-reflection layer, wherein the adhesive layer is in direct contact with the cover window. However, Yamazaki further teaches an upper module (130 and/or 140, Figs. 6A, 6B) comprises: an anti-reflection layer (not shown, but mentioned in col. 14, lns. 37-43: “…polarizing plate may be provided on a viewer side of the display panel 120 or viewer side of the touch panel 130…”; note polarizing plate is the same as anti-reflection layer) disposed on one surface of the display panel (120, Figs. 6A, 6B); and an adhesive layer disposed on the anti-reflection layer, wherein the adhesive layer is in direct contact with the cover window (not explicit, but inherently must have adhesive layer to prevent separation of different layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the upper module comprises: an anti-reflection layer disposed on one surface of the display panel; and an adhesive layer disposed on the anti-reflection layer, wherein the adhesive layer is in direct contact with the cover window in Choi in view of Yamazaki, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to reduce glare and give user a better viewing experience.
Regarding claim 20 as best understood, Choi in view of Yamazaki teaches the display device of claim 14, and Choi further teaches wherein the lower module comprises:
a support film (same as 601, Figs. 6a, 6b) disposed on the second surface of the display panel; and
a cover panel (same as 602, Figs. 6a, 6b) disposed on the support film,
wherein the cover panel has a dome shape (CP is dome shaped as shown in Fig. 2) and includes a bottom surface which is flat (flat surface taught by Yamazaki in above claim 14 regarding lower module).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights