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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (PG-PUB 2019/0108785) in view of Wang (CN205603499, citations based on machine translation provided) and Sen (US 11,456,259).
Regarding claim 1, Green teaches a process suitable for manufacturing a stitching display module, comprising:
disposing an optical adhesive film structure, wherein the optical adhesive film structure has an optical adhesive layer and a release film disposed in a stack (Figure 5 and [0022]-[0024], [0027]),
disposing at least one display panel on the optical adhesive layer (Figure 2, 4-5 and [0021]-[0023]).
Green does not teach:
disposing at least one mark on a first film surface of the release film facing away from the optical adhesive layer, wherein the at least one mark are recessed into the release film relative to the first film surface and do not run through the release film,
wherein the at least one display panel are disposed respectively to correspond to the at least one mark,
wherein the optical adhesive layer is disposed between the at least one display panel and the release film.
Wang teaches a light release film, optical adhesive layer, and heavy release film comprising a plurality of aligning marks on the heavy release film to allow for aligning [0013], [0019], [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Green with an optical adhesive film layer disposed between release layers as taught by Wang, a known suitable technique for supplying an optical adhesive film layer onto a display module, for the benefit of providing alignment during bonding as taught by Green.
Accordingly, the light release film of Green in view of Wang would be peeled and the heavy release film would be left before disposing the additional layers on the optical adhesive film as taught by Green, wherein the optical adhesive layer is disposed between the at least one display panel and the release film.
Sen teaches an alignment system for a die bonder using a camera module (Col 10, ln 17- Col 11, ln 32 and Figure 10a-10d). Sen teaches alignment marks are formed with high precision to get an accurate pitch from mark to mark, such as through mechanical drilling or etching (Col 7, ln 8-18). Sen teaches local die alignment marks formed in an alignment carrier using laser drilling to form shallow alignment marks in order to improve positional accuracy of dies on the alignment carrier, thereby improving yield and scalability (Col 4, ln 60- Col 5, ln 13).
Wang does not explicitly teach the mechanism of presenting the marks, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the process of Green in view of Wang with shallow alignment features as taught by Sen, a known suitable mechanism for alignment features for proper alignment of laminating components.
Regarding claim 2, Green in view of Wang and Sen teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising using the at least one mark as an alignment mark to dispose the at least one display panel on the optical adhesive layer, such that the at least one display panel corresponds to the at least one mark (Wang, [0019], [0022] and Sen, Col 4, ln 60- Col 5, ln 13).
Regarding claim 3, Green in view of Wang and Sen teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising illuminating the first film surface of the release film using a laser to dispose the at least one mark (Sen, Col 4, ln 60- Col 5, ln 13).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (PG-PUB 2019/0108785) in view of Wang (CN205603499, citations based on machine translation provided) and Sen (US 11,456,259), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Mutschelknaus (PG-PUB 2016/0247983).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Green in view of Wang and Sen teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising:
disposing at least one emitting component on a circuit substrate to form the at least one display panel (Green, Figure 4 and 5 and [0021]-[0024]),
wherein the emitting component adheres to the optical adhesive layer (Green, Figure 4 and 5);
removing the release film from the optical adhesive layer (see rejection of claim 1); and
adhering the optical adhesive layer to an transparent substrate (Green, [0019], [0021], [0027], [0031]-[0033]).
Green in view of Wang and Sen does not teach:
disposing an encapsulating adhesive layer on a circuit substrate to form the at least one display panel and adhering the encapsulating adhesive layer to a second film surface of the optical adhesive layer facing away from the release film.
Mutschelknaus teaches encapsulation of light-emitting elements on a display module (Figures 2, 4, 6, and 7 and [0026]-[0028]). Mutschelknaus teaches polymer encapsulation member seals the portion of the face of the circuit board and the portion of each light-emitting element to which it is adhered, for example, by sealing the circuit board and electronics mounted thereto from the surrounding environment [0003]. Mutschelknaus teaches the encapsulating mask 20 can substantially cover and substantially seal at least a portion of the front face 18 and at least a portion of the LEDs 14 mounted to the front face 18 [0026]-[0028]. Mutschelknaus teaches the encapsulating mask 20 can include a plurality of projections 21 that are each configured to receive and cover a corresponding LED 14. Mutschelknaus teaches the material that forms the encapsulating mask 20 can be substantially transparent so that light emitted from the LEDs 14 can be emitted through the encapsulating mask 20 [0023], [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Green in view of Wang and Sen with the encapsulating adhesive of Mutschelknaus for the benefit of sealing and protecting the LEDS and circuits when forming the display panel as taught by Mutschelknaus. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere the encapsulating adhesive layer to a second film surface of the optical adhesive layer facing away from the release film to encapsulate the LEDs and circuit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights