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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 20150007763) in view of Choi (US 2020/0022261 A1).
Note: Citations to Song refer to page/paragraph/lines in the attached English translation.
With respect to claim 1: Song teaches a light emitting display (Figs. 3 or 7) comprising: a substrate (110); a display layer (“a light emitting layer”; page 3) on the substrate (page 3); a heat insulating layer (120) under the substrate (see Figs. 3, 7); a heat dissipation layer (128, 130) under the heat insulating layer (see Figs. 3, 7); and a driving element (140) under the heat dissipation layer (see Figs. 3, 7).
Song does not specifically teach a protective layer under the substrate and over the heat insulating layer.
However, Choi teaches (see Fig., 6B) a protective layer (LM) under the substrate (AP) and over the heat insulating layer (SIL).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a protective layer as taught by Choi in order to protect the display panel DP from external impact (Choi paragraph 86).
With respect to claim 2: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the heat insulating layer prevents first heat generated from the display layer from being transferred to the driving element (see Figs. 3, 7), and prevents second heat generated from the driving element from being transferred to the display layer (see Figs. 3, 7)”.
With respect to claim 3: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the heat dissipation layer discharges heat generated from the driving element outside through a horizontal surface direction of the substrate (page 6; “At this time, if the metal layer 128 is formed between the back cover 130 and the adhesive layer 120, the heat generated in the circuit part 140 can be diffused to further improve the heat radiating effect”; see Fig. 7)”.
With respect to claim 9: Song in view of Choi teaches “The light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the heat insulating layer includes: a first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer (120)”.
Song does not specifically teach that the heat insulating layer is under the protective layer or that there is a shock absorbing layer under the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer.
However, Choi teaches that the heat insulating layer (SIL) is under (see Fig. 6b) the protective layer (LM) and that there is a shock absorbing layer (EL) under (see Fig. 3C) the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer (L-AM).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a protective layer which includes a shock absorbing layer as taught by Choi in order to protect the display panel DP from external impact (Choi paragraph 86).
Song does not specifically teach “a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer under the shock absorbing layer”.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). In the present case one would reasonably expect a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer as taught by Song to have the same effect as the first (Song page 4; “However, since the adhesive layer 120 has a relatively excellent heat insulating property and adhesiveness, it blocks heat conducted to the inside. 4, the heat conducted to the inside is intercepted by the adhesive layer 120 positioned between the back cover 130 and the substrate 110. As a result, the display panel 115 has a defect So that a uniform temperature is maintained as a whole”).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer under the shock absorbing layer
With respect to claim 13: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “a heat dissipation element (130) attached to the driving element (see Figs. 3, 7)”.
Claims 4-8, 10-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 3, 9, 13 above, and further in view of Hatano (US 2011/0175102 A1).
With respect to claim 4: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the heat insulating layer includes: a metal layer (128) under the heat insulating layer (see Fig. 8)”.
Song does not specifically teach “a thermal conductive adhesive layer under the metal layer”.
However, Hatano teaches “a thermal conductive adhesive layer (121) under the metal layer (122)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a thermally conductive adhesive layer under the metal layer as taught by Hatano in order to bond the metal layer to the display (Hatano paragraph 76) and permit heat to transmit into the metal layer to be emitted therefrom (Hatano paragraphs 78, 80).
With respect to claim 5: Song in view of Choi and Hatano teaches “The light emitting display according to claim 4 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the metal layer discharges the heat transferred from the thermal conductive adhesive layer outside along a horizontal surface direction of the substrate (see Fig. 7)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer transfers the heat generated from the driving element to the metal layer”.
However, Hatano teaches “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer transfers the heat generated from the driving element to the metal layer (paragraph 78)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a thermally conductive adhesive layer under the metal layer as taught by Hatano in order to bond the metal layer to the display (Hatano paragraph 76) and permit heat to transmit into the metal layer to be emitted therefrom (Hatano paragraphs 78, 80).
With respect to claim 6: Song in view of Choi and Hatano teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 4 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the metal layer includes aluminum (page 6; “The metal layer 128 may be made of a material having a relatively high thermal conductivity such as aluminum, copper, or carbon”)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler and a silicon-based resin with a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, Hatano teaches “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler (paragraph 78) and a silicon-based resin (paragraph 77), the filler including aluminum particles (paragraph 78) and silicon nitride particles (paragraph 78)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by using a silicon based resin with aluminum and silicon nitride fillers as taught by Hatano due to the art recognized suitability of the resin as an adhesive (Hatano paragraph 77) and art recognized suitability of aluminum and silicon nitride fillers for the purpose of increasing the thermal conductance of said adhesive (Hatano paragraph 78).
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the thermally conductive adhesive layer to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the metal layer to the display (Hatano paragraph 76) and permit heat to transmit into the metal layer to be emitted therefrom (Hatano paragraphs 78, 80).
With respect to claim 7: Song in view of Choi teaches “The light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “further comprising: a thermal conductive cover layer on the display layer”.
However, Hatano teaches “further comprising: a thermal conductive cover layer (111) on the display layer (116)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a thermally conductive cover layer on the display layer as taught by Hatano in order to both transmit light and conduct heat from the display (Hatano paragraphs 70-71).
With respect to claim 8: Song in view of Choi and Hatano teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 7 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the thermal conductive cover layer includes a filler and a silicon-based resin with a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, Hatano teaches “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler (paragraph 71) and a silicon-based resin (paragraph 70), the filler including aluminum particles (paragraph 71) and silicon nitride particles (paragraph 71)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by using a silicon based resin with aluminum and silicon nitride fillers as taught by Hatano due to the art recognized suitability of the resin as an adhesive (Hatano paragraph 77) and art recognized suitability of aluminum and silicon nitride fillers for the purpose of increasing the thermal conductance of said adhesive (Hatano paragraph 78).
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the thermally conductive adhesive layer to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the substrate to the display (Hatano paragraph 70) and permit heat to be conducted (Hatano paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 10: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 9 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein each of the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer and the second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler (page 4: “The adhesive layer 120 is formed to include a material having an adiabatic effect such as a hollow particle such as an airgel 123 and a hollow spherical silica 125 or a glass fiber and has a relatively excellent adiabatic property”) and an acryl-based resin (page 4; “At this time, the adhesive layer 120 may be made of, for example, one of resins containing one of urethane acrylic, acrylic ester, and epoxy.”)”.
Song does not specifically teach “with a volume content ratio in a range of 3:7 to 6:4, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 2:8”.
However, Song teaches “Such an adhesive layer is less heat diffusive than an improved heat insulating property. Therefore, in order to compensate for the heat diffusivity, the adhesive layer 120 of the organic light emitting diode display device of the present invention may be coated with at least one surface of the back cover (130 of FIG. 3) or the display panel By forming a metal layer containing one of the metals having high thermal conductivity such as carbon, the problem that the heat dissipation effect is lowered due to the decrease in the thermal diffusibility can be compensated” (Song page 5), recognizing that the heat insulating property comes with a trade off of lowered diffusivity and suggesting adding material having high thermal conductivity to compensate. Hatano describes both aluminum and silicon nitride as material having high thermal conductivity (paragraph 78) and would thus suggest their inclusion in the non-thermal conductive adhesive layer for that purpose.
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 3:7 to 6:4, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 2:8”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the thermally conductive adhesive layer to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the substrate to the display (Hatano paragraph 70) and permit heat to be conducted (Hatano paragraph 71) for the purpose of compensating for the decrease in the thermal diffusibility (Song page 5).
With respect to claim 11: Song in view of Choi “the light emitting display according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein the heat dissipation layer includes: a metal layer (128) under the heat insulating layer (120); and wherein the heat insulating layer includes: a first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer (120)”.
Song does not specifically teach “further comprising: a thermal conductive cover layer on the display layer”.
However, Hatano teaches “further comprising: a thermal conductive cover layer (111) on the display layer (116)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a thermally conductive cover layer on the display layer as taught by Hatano in order to both transmit light and conduct heat from the display (Hatano paragraphs 70-71).
Song does not specifically teach “a thermal conductive adhesive layer under the metal layer”.
However, Hatano teaches “a thermal conductive adhesive layer (121) under the metal layer (122)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a thermally conductive adhesive layer under the metal layer as taught by Hatano in order to bond the metal layer to the display (Hatano paragraph 76) and permit heat to transmit into the metal layer to be emitted therefrom (Hatano paragraphs 78, 80).
Song does not specifically teach that the heat insulating layer is under the protective layer or that there is a shock absorbing layer under the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer.
However, Choi teaches that the heat insulating layer (SIL) is under (see Fig. 6b) the protective layer (LM) and that there is a shock absorbing layer (EL) under (see Fig. 3C) the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer (L-AM).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a protective layer which includes a shock absorbing layer as taught by Choi in order to protect the display panel DP from external impact (Choi paragraph 86).
Song does not specifically teach “a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer under the shock absorbing layer”.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). In the present case one would reasonably expect a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer as taught by Song to have the same effect as the first (Song page 4; “However, since the adhesive layer 120 has a relatively excellent heat insulating property and adhesiveness, it blocks heat conducted to the inside. 4, the heat conducted to the inside is intercepted by the adhesive layer 120 positioned between the back cover 130 and the substrate 110. As a result, the display panel 115 has a defect So that a uniform temperature is maintained as a whole”).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by adding a second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer under the shock absorbing layer.
With respect to claim 12: Song in view of Choi and Hatano teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 11 (see above)”.
Song further teaches “wherein each of the first non-thermal conductive adhesive layer and the second non-thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler (page 4: “The adhesive layer 120 is formed to include a material having an adiabatic effect such as a hollow particle such as an airgel 123 and a hollow spherical silica 125 or a glass fiber and has a relatively excellent adiabatic property”) and an acryl-based resin (page 4; “At this time, the adhesive layer 120 may be made of, for example, one of resins containing one of urethane acrylic, acrylic ester, and epoxy.”)”.
Song does not specifically teach “with a volume content ratio in a range of 3:7 to 6:4, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 2:8”.
However, Song teaches “Such an adhesive layer is less heat diffusive than an improved heat insulating property. Therefore, in order to compensate for the heat diffusivity, the adhesive layer 120 of the organic light emitting diode display device of the present invention may be coated with at least one surface of the back cover (130 of FIG. 3) or the display panel By forming a metal layer containing one of the metals having high thermal conductivity such as carbon, the problem that the heat dissipation effect is lowered due to the decrease in the thermal diffusibility can be compensated” (Song page 5), recognizing that the heat insulating property comes with a trade off of lowered diffusivity and suggesting adding material having high thermal conductivity to compensate. Hatano describes both aluminum and silicon nitride as material having high thermal conductivity (paragraph 78) and would thus suggest their inclusion in the non-thermal conductive adhesive layer for that purpose.
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 3:7 to 6:4, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 2:8”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the thermally conductive adhesive layer to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the substrate to the display (Hatano paragraph 70) and permit heat to be conducted (Hatano paragraph 71) for the purpose of compensating for the decrease in the thermal diffusibility (Song page 5).
Song does not teach “wherein each of the thermal conductive cover layer and the thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler and a silicon-based resin with a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, Hatano teaches “wherein each of the thermal conductive cover layer (111) and the thermal conductive adhesive layer (121) includes a filler (paragraph 71, 78) and a silicon-based resin (paragraphs 70, 77)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by using a silicon based resin with aluminum and silicon nitride fillers as taught by Hatano due to the art recognized suitability of the resin as an adhesive (Hatano paragraph 77) and art recognized suitability of aluminum and silicon nitride fillers for the purpose of increasing the thermal conductance of said adhesive (Hatano paragraph 78).
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the thermally conductive adhesive and cover layers to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the substrate to the display (Hatano paragraph 70) and permit heat to be conducted (Hatano paragraph 71).
With respect to claim 14: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 13 (see above)”.
Song does not teach “wherein the heat dissipation element includes a filler and a silicon-based resin with a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, the filler including aluminum particles and silicon nitride particles with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, Hatano teaches “wherein the thermal conductive adhesive layer includes a filler (paragraph 71) and a silicon-based resin (paragraph 70), the filler including aluminum particles (paragraph 71) and silicon nitride particles (paragraph 71)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light emitting display of Song by using a silicon based resin with aluminum and silicon nitride fillers as taught by Hatano due to the art recognized suitability of the resin as an adhesive (Hatano paragraph 77) and art recognized suitability of aluminum and silicon nitride fillers for the purpose of increasing the thermal conductance of said adhesive (Hatano paragraph 78).
Song in view of Hatano does not explicitly teach “a volume content ratio in a range of 8:2 to 9:1, with a volume content ratio of 8:2”.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the present case Hatano discloses that the silicone resin, the aluminum, and the silicon nitride are results effective variables, with the silicone resin associated with the result of adhesion (Hatano paragraph 77) and the aluminum and silicon nitride associated with the result of thermal conductivity (Hatano paragraph 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to optimize the concentrations of the heat dissipation element to obtain desired adhesion and thermal conductivity as suggested by Hatano through routine experimentation in order to bond the substrate to the display (Hatano paragraph 70) and permit heat to be conducted (Hatano paragraph 71).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Choi as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2005/0077601 A1).
With respect to claim 15: Song in view of Choi teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 13 (see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the heat dissipation element includes: a base portion; and a pattern portion on the base portion, the pattern portion including a plurality of patterns arrayed with a predetermined interval on the base portion”.
However, Yu teaches “wherein the heat dissipation element (38) includes: a base portion (382); and a pattern portion (384) on the base portion (see Fig. 3), the pattern portion including a plurality of patterns arrayed with a predetermined interval on the base portion (paragraph 71)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the light emitting display of Song with the patterned heat dissipation element of Yu in order to improve the heat dissipation by increasing the surface area of the heat dissipation element (Yu paragraph 70)”.
With respect to claim 16: Song in view of Choi and Yu teaches “the light emitting display according to claim 15(see above)”.
Song does not specifically teach “wherein the pattern portion includes a cross-sectional shape of any one shape of triangle, rectangle, and semicircle”.
However, Yu teaches “wherein the pattern portion includes a cross-sectional shape of any one shape of triangle, rectangle, and semicircle (paragraph 71)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the light emitting display of Song with the patterned heat dissipation element of Yu in order to improve the heat dissipation by increasing the surface area of the heat dissipation element (Yu paragraph 70)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 20110193478 A1), which teaches an organic light emitting display.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
