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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/4/2024 and 8/31/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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 and Display Apparatus Having Moisture-Resistant Side Cover.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 9-10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12046589-B2, in view of Lee et al. (WO-2022/030779-A1, hereinafter Lee).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. Claims 1, 9 and 10 of the ‘589 patent claim a display module including a substrate having mounting, side and rear surfaces, inorganic light-emitting elements on the mounting surface, a front cover covering and extending outside the mounting surface, a metal plate bonded to the rear surface, and a side cover surrounding the substrate side surface and extending between the metal-plate region and the lower portion of the outwardly extending front-cover region. Claim 10 further recites that the side cover extends to and surrounds the edges of the metal plate.
Regarding claim 1, the principle differences are the express recitations of a TFT layer, and anisotropic conductive layer electrically connecting the TFT layer and inorganic light-emitting elements, and a moisture-proof material for the side cover. Lee teaches a substrate having a TFT layer for driving inorganic light-emitting elements and an anisotropic conductive layer, including ACF, for electrically connecting the LED contact electrodes to corresponding substrate pad electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘589’s device with the teachings of Lee, as identified above, for it is a known driving and electrical-bonding arrangement for the inorganic LED’s. The moisture-proof recitation likewise does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 9 and 10, claims 2, 3 and 5 of the ‘589 patent recite a conductive side-end member disposed on the outer and of the side cover and contacting the metal plate, including a side end of the metal plate. This corresponds to the grounding member of claim 9, which covers at least a portion of the side end of the side cover and contacts the metal plate. The ‘589 patents further identifies metal as an implementation of the conductive side-end member within the scope of that claimed structure. Thus, providing the grounding member of claim 10 as metal would have been an obvious selection of a known conductive material for the claimed conductive member. Claims 9 and 10 therefore do not define patentable distinct subject matter.
Regarding Claim 11, claim 10 of the ‘589 patent expressly recites the side cover extending from the edges of the mounting surface to corresponding edges of the metal plate so as to surround the metal-plate edges. Accordingly, further specifying that the side cover extends from the front-cover end to the side surface of the metal plate does not render claim 11 patentably distinct from the claimed ‘589 structure.
Regarding Claim 12, claim 14 of the ‘589 patent claims the corresponding display apparatus in which a plurality of such display modules are horizontally arranged in an MxN matrix and includes substantially the same substrate, inorganic LEDs, front cover, rear metal plate and side-cover arrangement. Lee further teaches a plurality of display modules arranged in an MxN matrix and installed on and supported by a frame. Lee also teaches the TFT/anisotropic-conductive-layer arrangement discussed above. It would therefore have been obvious to use Lee’s known frame-supported tiled arrangement and TFT/ACF electrical interconnection with the display modules claimed in the ‘589 patent. Accordingly, claim 12 is not patentably distinct from the inventions claimed in the ‘589 patent in view of Lee.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,589, in view of Lee et al. (WO-2022/030779-A1, hereinafter Lee) and Han et al. (US-2019/0122592-A1, hereinafter Han).
Regarding Claim 7, the ‘589 patent claims a side cover comprising a light-absorbing material. Han teaches forming a lateral light-absorbing layer from black light-absorbing materials, including black inorganic, organic, or material, to enhance light absorption. It would therefore have been obvious to provide the light-absorbing side cover in black, as recite in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, and 13-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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 at (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 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
