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 .
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 1-4, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,516. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in the present claims, “first display modules,” “frame area,” “light-emitting module,” and “transparent” are obvious depictions of “hybrid display devices,” “border area,” “second display module,” and “light-transmissive,” respectively, in the patent.
Claims 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader than the patent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 14 recite the limitation “the first display module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
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.
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 1-5, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0171228) in view of Li (US 2014/0198251).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a spliced display panel (DSP, Figs. 1-8), comprising:
at least two first display modules (PNL1, PNL2) being spliced, the first display module having a display area (DA) and a frame area (NDA), two adjacent frame areas forming a spliced region (Figs. 1, 3, 8), the spliced region being transparent (Fig. 4; para. [0047]), and the first display module having a display surface (10A) and a non-display surface (20B) disposed oppositely (Fig. 2);
a second module (CM1), the second display module being disposed on one side of the non-display surface away from the display surface (Fig. 3), and a projection of the second display module on the non-display surface corresponding to the spliced region (Fig. 3); and
an optically clear adhesive (FL; para. [0047]), wherein a seam is present between adjacent two of the first display modules (Figs. 1, 3, 8), and the optically clear adhesive is disposed in the seam and does not exceed the display surface (Fig. 3).
Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose the second module is a second display module.
However, Li discloses a spliced display panel (Figs. 1-2), comprising a second display module (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second module being a second display module, as in Li, into the spliced display panel of Nakamura to display an image in the spliced frame to reduce viewing of the frame (Li, paras. [0002, 0020, 0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura discloses a spliced display device (DSP, Figs. 1-8), wherein the spliced display device comprises a spliced display panel (PNL) and a backlight module (CM1), the spliced display panel comprises at least two spliced first display modules (PNL1, PNL2) and a second module (CM2, Figs. 5-7), the spliced display panel further comprise an optically clear adhesive (FL; para. [0047]);
the first display module has a display area (DA) and a frame area (NDA), two adjacent frame areas forms a spliced region (Figs. 1, 5-8), the spliced region is transparent (Fig. 4; para. [0047]); the first display module has a display surface (10A) and a non-display surface (20B) disposed oppositely (Fig. 2);
the backlight module (CM1) is used to provide a backlight for the first display module (paras. [0041, 0045, 0049]);
wherein a seam is present between adjacent two of the first display modules (Figs. 1, 5-8), and the optically clear adhesive (FL) is disposed in the seam and does not exceed the display surface (Figs. 5-7).
Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose the second module is a second display module; the second display module is disposed on one side of the non-display surface away from the display surface, and a projection of the second display module on the non-display surface corresponds to the spliced region.
However, Li discloses a spliced display device (Figs. 1-2), comprising a second display module (2); the second display module is disposed on one side of the non-display surface away from the display surface (para. [0030]), and a projection of the second display module on the non-display surface corresponds to the spliced region (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second module being a second display module; the second display module disposed on one side of the non-display surface away from the display surface, and a projection of the second display module on the non-display surface corresponding to the spliced region, as in Li, into the spliced display panel of Nakamura to display an image in the spliced frame to reduce viewing of the frame (Li, paras. [0002, 0020, 0030]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Nakamura discloses wherein the first display module (PNL) comprises an array substrate (10), a liquid crystal layer (LC), an opposite substrate (20), and a sealant (SL); the array substrate and the opposite substrate are disposed opposite to each other (Figs. 2-7); the sealant is connected between the array substrate and the opposite substrate (Figs. 2-7); the sealant is disposed corresponding to the frame area (Figs. 1-8); the liquid crystal layer is disposed between the array substrate and the opposite substrate (Figs. 2-7); and the liquid crystal layer is disposed corresponding to the display area (Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Nakamura discloses wherein the optically clear adhesive (FL) further extends to the non-display surface (20B) of the first display module (PNL) in the seam, and is disposed between the second module (CM1/CM2) and the non-display surface (Figs. 3-7).
Li further discloses the second display module (2).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses wherein a light transmittance of the sealant (SL) is more than 70% (Fig. 4; para. [0051]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Nakamura discloses wherein the second module (CM1/CM2) deviates from 0 μm to 300 μm inward or outward in at least one side of the spliced region (Figs. 1-8).
Li further discloses the second display module (2).
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0066389), hereinafter “Chen ‘389”, in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0339570), hereinafter “Chen ‘570”.
Regarding claim 6, Chen ‘389 discloses a spliced display panel (10, Figs. 1-9), comprising:
at least two first display modules (201, 202) being spliced, the first display module having a display area and a frame area (Fig. 1), two adjacent frame areas forming a spliced region (Figs. 1-9), the spliced region being transparent (Fig. 8; para. [0066]), and the first display module having a display surface and a non-display surface disposed oppositely (Fig. 8; paras. [0028, 0031]);
a second display module (100), the second display module being disposed on one side of the non-display surface away from the display surface (Fig. 8), and a projection of the second display module on the non-display surface corresponding to the spliced region (Figs. 1, 8);
wherein the second display module (100) further comprises a light conversion layer (170), the light conversion layer is disposed close to one side of the first display module (Fig. 8).
Chen ‘389 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second display module further comprises a light-emitting structure, and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer away from the first display module.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses a spliced display panel (Figs. 1-16), wherein the second display module (106) further comprises a light-emitting structure (122A), and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer (42Q, 46Q) away from the first display module (104) (Figs. 14-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the second display module further comprises a light-emitting structure, and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer away from the first display module, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Chen ‘389 to provide a self-emissive quantum dot display as desired.
Regarding claim 7, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein the light conversion layer (170) has a first light conversion sublayer (172), a second light conversion sublayer (174), and a light-transmitting hole (140, 142, or 150) that are disposed in a same layer (Fig. 8); the first light conversion sublayer and the second light conversion sublayer are respectively excited to emit light with different colors (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein, the light conversion layer further has a light guide layer (140, 142, or 150), the light guide layer is disposed in the light-transmitting hole (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein the first light conversion sublayer (172) emits a red light when excited by the blue light, the second light conversion sublayer (174) emits a green light when excited by the blue light (para. [0058]), and the light-transmitting hole (140, 142, or 150) is used to transmit the blue light (paras. [0059, 0072]).
Chen ‘389 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light-emitting structure emits a blue light.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses wherein the light-emitting structure (122A) emits a blue light (para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light-emitting structure emits a blue light, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Chen ‘389 to use a common, self-emissive quantum dot display as desired.
Regarding claim 10, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein the light conversion layer (170) has a first light conversion sublayer (172) and a second light conversion sublayer (174) that are disposed in a same layer (Fig. 8); the first and second light conversion sublayers are respectively excited to emit light with different colors (para. [0058]).
Chen ‘389 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light conversion layer has a third light conversion sublayer that is disposed in the same layer; the third light conversion sublayer is excited to emit light with a different color.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses wherein the light conversion layer (42Q) has a third light conversion sublayer that is disposed in the same layer (Fig. 14A); the third light conversion sublayer is excited to emit light with a different color (para. [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light conversion layer has a third light conversion sublayer that is disposed in the same layer; the third light conversion sublayer is excited to emit light with a different color, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Chen ‘389 to use a common, self-emissive quantum dot display as desired.
Regarding claim 11, Chen ‘389 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first light conversion sublayer emits a red light when excited by a light emitted by the light-emitting structure, the second light conversion sublayer emits a green light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure, and the third light conversion sublayer emits a blue light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses wherein the first light conversion sublayer (42Q) emits a red light when excited by a light emitted by the light-emitting structure (122A), the second light conversion sublayer (42Q) emits a green light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure (122A), and the third light conversion sublayer (42Q) emits a blue light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure (para. [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first light conversion sublayer emits a red light when excited by a light emitted by the light-emitting structure, the second light conversion sublayer emits a green light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure, and the third light conversion sublayer emits a blue light when excited by the light emitted by the light-emitting structure, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Chen ‘389 to use a common, self-emissive quantum dot display as desired.
Regarding claim 12, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein the light conversion layer further comprises a transparent photoresist layer (140; para. [0046]), the transparent photoresist layer at least partially fills the light-transmitting hole (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Chen ‘389 discloses wherein the spliced display panel (10) further comprises an optically clear adhesive (300; para. [0029]), a seam is present between adjacent two of the first display modules (201, 202), and the optically clear adhesive is disposed in the seam and does not exceed the display surface (Fig. 8).
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2022/0171228) in view of Li (US 2014/0198251), as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0339570).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura in view of Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein one side, away from the display surface, of the backlight module is flush with one side, away from the display surface, of the second display module.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses a spliced display device (Figs. 1-16), wherein one side, away from the display surface, of the backlight module (118) is flush with one side, away from the display surface, of the second display module (106 to bottom of 134) (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11-14, 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein one side, away from the display surface, of the backlight module is flush with one side, away from the display surface, of the second display module, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Nakamura and Li for even uniformity as desired.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Nakamura in view of Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second display module further comprises a light conversion layer and a light-emitting structure, the light conversion layer is disposed close to one side of the first display module, and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer away from the first display module; and wherein the light conversion layer has a first light conversion sublayer, a second light conversion sublayer and a third light conversion sublayer that are disposed in a same layer; the first, second and third light conversion sublayers are respectively excited to emit light with different colors.
However, Chen ‘570 discloses a spliced display device (Figs. 1-16), wherein the second display module (106) further comprises a light conversion layer (42Q, 46Q) and a light-emitting structure (122A), the light conversion layer is disposed close to one side of the first display module (Figs. 14-16), and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer (42Q, 46Q) away from the first display module (104) (Figs. 14-16); and wherein the light conversion layer (42Q) has a first light conversion sublayer, a second light conversion sublayer and a third light conversion sublayer that are disposed in a same layer (Fig. 14A); the first, second and third light conversion sublayers are respectively excited to emit light with different colors (para. [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the second display module further comprises a light conversion layer and a light-emitting structure, the light conversion layer is disposed close to one side of the first display module, and the light-emitting structure is disposed on one side of the light conversion layer away from the first display module; and wherein the light conversion layer has a first light conversion sublayer, a second light conversion sublayer and a third light conversion sublayer that are disposed in a same layer; the first, second and third light conversion sublayers are respectively excited to emit light with different colors, as in Chen ‘570, into the spliced display panel of Nakamura and Li to provide a self-emissive quantum dot display as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights