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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a continuation of a parent application no. 18/230,518 that has since issued. The parent application was a divisional of a grandparent application no. 16/843,890.
Currently, claims 1-15 are pending an examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Information disclosure statement submitted on 07/10/2024 (“07-10-24 IDS”) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 07-10-24 IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAY MODULE HAVING LATERAL SURFACES OF ADHESIVE LAYER RECESSED FROM LATERAL SURFACES OF CARRIER PANEL, DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME[[, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE DISPLAY APPARATUS]]
A. Prior-art rejections based on ‘852 Park
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2017/0343852 A1 to Park (" ‘852 Park").
Fig. 8 of ‘852 Park has annotated to support the rejections below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP2)][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP1)][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
316
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 9, ‘852 Park teaches a display apparatus (viewing the display device DD upside down) comprising:
a display panel DP (para [0045] - “display panel DP”) including a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1 shows a display panel DP, which would have more than one pixel; otherwise, it would not function as a display but as a back light.);
a lower protective panel WP (para [0044] - “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the display device DD may include a display panel DP, a window part WP, an adhesive part AP disposed between the display panel DP and the window part WP, and a plurality of optical patterns OP provided on a bottom surface of a first substrate SUB1 included in the display panel DP.”) on a rear surface RS of the display panel DP; and
an adhesive layer AP between the display panel DP and the lower protective panel WP,
wherein
lateral surfaces CP1, CP2 of the display panel DP are inclined from lateral surfaces S1, S2 of the lower protective panel WP, and
a portion of the rear surface RS of the display panel DP is exposed through the adhesive layer AP.
Regarding claim 10, ‘852 Park teaches lateral surfaces of the adhesive layer AP that are recessed from the lateral surfaces CP1, CP2 of the display panel DP.
Regarding claim 11, ‘852 Park teaches the display panel DP that includes a substrate SUB1 or SUB2 and an organic light-emitting device (para [0048] - “In some exemplary embodiments, the display panel DP may be…an organic light emitting display panel…”) on the substrate SUB1 or SUB2.
Regarding claim 12, ‘852 Park teaches the substrate SUB2 that includes polyimide (para [0065] - “In the display device DD of FIG. 3, the display panel DP may be an organic light emitting display panel, and the first substrate SUB1 of the display panel DP may be an encapsulation substrate and the second substrate SUB2 may be a base element.”; para [0067] - “In an exemplary embodiment, for example, the plastic substrate for the base element may consist of or include at least one of polyimide (PI)…”).
B. Prior-art rejections based at least on ‘631 Park
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2018/0088631 A1 to Park et al. (" ‘631 Park").
Fig. 4 of ‘631 Park has annotated to support the rejections below:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
482
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: textbox (S2)]
Regarding independent claim 9, ‘631 Park teaches a display apparatus (see Fig. 3; Fig. 4 details of the element layer and the backside layer of FIG. 3; see para [0052]) comprising:
a display panel 240 (As illustrated in FIG. 4, the element layer 240 may include a plastic substrate 210, a display element layer 220 including a display element such as an organic light-emitting diode (OLED)”) including a plurality of pixels (para [0094] - “The display element layer 220 may be over the plastic substrate 210 and may include a pixel circuit CL and an OLED.”; Fig. 1 shows a display area DA which includes more than one pixel.);
a lower protective panel 300 (para [0065] - “backside layer 300”) on a rear surface of the display panel 240; and
an adhesive layer 350 (para [0066] - “adhesive layer 350”) between the display panel 240 and the lower protective panel 300,
wherein
lateral surfaces S1 of the display panel 240 are inclined from lateral surfaces S2 of the lower protective panel 300 (each pair of surfaces S1 and S2 would intersect.), and
a portion of the rear surface of the display panel 240 is exposed through the adhesive layer 350,
wherein the lower protective panel includes a metal 330 (para [0062] - “The electrostatic shielding layer 330 may include…copper.”).
Regarding claim 10, ‘631 Park teaches the lateral surfaces of the adhesive layer 350 are recessed from the lateral surfaces S1 of the display panel 240.
Regarding claim 11, ‘631 Park teaches the display panel 240 that includes a substrate 210 (para [0061] - “plastic substrate 210”) and an organic light-emitting device 220 (para [0094] - “[0094] The display element layer 220 may be over the plastic substrate 210 and may include a pixel circuit CL and an OLED.”) on the substrate 210.
Regarding claim 13, ‘631 Park teaches the display panel 240 that is foldable around a folding axis extending in a predetermined direction.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘631 Park and further in view of ‘852 Park.
Regarding claim 12, ‘852 Park teaches the substrate 210 that is a plastic substrate but does not specify that the plastic substrate can be made of polyimide.
‘631 Park teaches that base plastic substrate of a display panel DP can be made of polyimide (PI) (para [0067]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display apparatus of ‘631 Park by providing a plastic substrate made of polyimide as taught by ‘85 Park as “all the claimed elements were know 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 nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).” (quoting Section 2143.02 of the MPEP).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 4 and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Patent No. US 12,069,935 B2 to Yug (“Parent Patent”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because the scope of claims of the Parent Patent is at least substantially the same with that of claims of the present application.
Regarding independent claim 1 of the present application, claim 6 of the Parent Patent recites a display module comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of pixels (claim 1 - “a display panel including a plurality of pixels”);
a carrier panel on a rear surface of the display panel (claim 1 - “a carrier panel on a rear surface of the display panel”) ;
an adhesive layer disposed between the display panel and the carrier panel,
wherein the adhesive layer is in contact with the carrier panel (claim 1 - “an adhesive layer disposed between the display panel and the carrier panel, wherein the adhesive layer is in contact with the carrier panel”);
a window on a front surface of the display panel (claim 5 - “a window on a front surface of the display panel”); and
an additional adhesive layer between the display panel and the window (Claim 6 - “an additional adhesive layer between the display panel and the window”),
wherein lateral surfaces of the adhesive layer are recessed from lateral surfaces of the carrier panel (claim 1 - “lateral surfaces of the adhesive layer is disposed further inwardly than lateral surfaces of the carrier panel”), and
wherein the lateral surfaces of the carrier panel have inclined surfaces with respect to the rear surface of the display panel (claim 3 - “wherein the lateral surfaces of the carrier panel have inclined surfaces with respect to the rear surfaces of the display panel”),
wherein a lateral surface of the additional adhesive layer is aligned with the inclined surfaces when viewed in cross section (claim 6 - “wherein a lateral surface of the additional adhesive layer is aligned with the inclined surfaces when viewed in cross section”).
Regarding claim 4 of the present application, claim 6 of the Parent Patent recites wherein lateral surfaces of the window are aligned with the inclined surfaces when viewed in cross section (claim 5 - “wherein lateral surfaces of the window are aligned with the inclined surfaces when viewed in cross section.”).
Regarding independent claim 9 of the present application, claim 14 of the Parent Patent recites a display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of pixels (claim 11 - “a display panel including a plurality of pixels”);
a lower protective panel on a rear surface of the display panel (claim 11 - “a lower protective panel on a rear surface of the display panel”); and
an adhesive layer between the display panel and the lower protective panel (claim 11 - “an adhesive layer between the display panel and the lower protective panel”),
wherein
lateral surfaces of the display panel are inclined from lateral surfaces of the lower protective panel (claim 11 - “lateral surfaces of the display panel are inclined from lateral surface of the lower protective panel”), and
a portion of the rear surface of the display panel is exposed through the adhesive layer (claim 11 - “each lateral surfaces of adhesive layer is disposed further inwardly than a closest one among the lateral surfaces of the display panel”),
wherein the lower protective panel includes a metal (claim 14 - “wherein the lower protective panel includes a metal.”).
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, claim 14 recites wherein lateral surfaces of the adhesive layer are recessed from the lateral surfaces of the display panel (claim 11 - “each lateral surfaces of adhesive layer is disposed further inwardly than a closest one among the lateral surfaces of the display panel”).
Regarding claim 11 of the present application, claim 14 recites wherein the display panel includes a substrate and an organic light-emitting device on the substrate (claim 12 - “wherein the display panel includes a substrate and an organic light-emitting device on the substrate.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
But for its pending double patenting rejection, independent claim 1 would be allowable.
Claims 2-8 are allowable, because they depend from the allowable independent claim 1.
Claim 14 is objected to but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of base claim 9, or the base claim 9 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 14.
Claim 15 is allowable for depending from the allowable claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2011/0187960 A1 to Kobayashi et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. 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.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 28 July 2026
1 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 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.
Prosecution Insights