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 Objections
Claim 13 is subject to objection because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 13, the second clause is grammatically awkward. It is recommended the clause be amended to “wherein the drive chip is bonded to a side of the bonding portion facing away from the flat portion[[,]] and the conductive layer covers the drive chip.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0393936 A1 (Bok) in view of US 2021/0247871 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Bok teaches a display module (Abstract, Figs. 8-9), comprising: a display panel comprising a light-emitting side (Fig. 9 at 100) and a backlight side (Fig. 9 at SUB and below) arranged opposite to each other (Fig. 9); a Near Field Communication (NFC) module located on the backlight side of the display panel ([278], [296]: antenna area APA may contain coil shape, which may be used for near filed communication; Fig. 8 at APA according to Fig. 9).
Bok does not expressly teach an electrostatic shielding layer located on the backlight side of the display panel, wherein the electrostatic shielding layer comprises a first hollowed-out region, an orthogonal projection of the first hollowed-out region on the display panel and an orthogonal projection of the NFC module on the display panel at least partially overlap with each other. Kim teaches that an electrostatic shielding layer (Fig. 7B at CP) comprises a first hollowed-out region (Fig. 7B at TP), an orthogonal projection of the first hollowed-out region on the display panel and an orthogonal projection of the NFC module on the display panel at least partially overlap with each other (Fig. 7B at ANT, TP). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Bok by the teaching of Kim is present as both teach mobile display devices with patch antennas. The motivation is to improve signal quality. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Bok and Kim teach mobile display devices with patch antennas, while Bok teaches that a coil antenna for near field communication may be used instead of a radio patch antenna. Because Bok teaches using a coil NFC antenna instead of a patch antenna, located on the backlight side of the display panel, and Kim teaches that the shield and antenna overlap (Fig. 7B), the combination of the antenna taught by Bok with the shield taught by Kim renders obvious an electrostatic shielding layer located on the backlight side of the display panel, wherein the electrostatic shielding layer comprises a first hollowed-out region, an orthogonal projection of the first hollowed-out region on the display panel and an orthogonal projection of the NFC module on the display panel at least partially overlap with each other.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches wherein the electrostatic shielding layer further comprises an electrostatic shielding region surrounding the first hollowed-out region, the orthogonal projection of the antenna on the display panel is within the orthogonal projection of the first hollowed-out region on the display panel (Fig. 7B). Bok teaches the NFC module ([278], [296]). For the rationale explained above, the combination of Bok and Kim further renders obvious wherein the electrostatic shielding layer further comprises an electrostatic shielding region surrounding the first hollowed-out region, the orthogonal projection of the NFC module on the display panel is within the orthogonal projection of the first hollowed-out region on the display panel.
Regarding claim 3, Bok further teaches wherein the display panel comprises a center region and a peripheral region surrounding the center region (Figs. 8, 9: the center region may be defined to be very small). For the rationale explained above, the combination of Bok and Kim further renders obvious that an orthogonal projection of the electrostatic shielding region on the display panel at least partially covers the peripheral region.
Regarding claim 4, Bok further teaches a heat dissipation layer coupled to the backlight side of the display panel ([273]; Fig. 9 at PB).
Regarding claim 12, Bok further teaches wherein the display panel is a flexible display panel comprising a flat portion (Fig. 9 at SUB), a bending portion (Fig. 8 at BA2), and a bonding portion (Fig. 8 at PDA2, Fig. 9 at 360) connected in sequence (Figs. 8, 9), the bonding portion is bent to the backlight side of the flat portion through the bending portion (Fig. 9 at SUB, 360), the heat dissipation layer is coupled to the backlight side of the flat portion ([273]; Fig. 9 at PB). For the rationale explained above (Kim teaches the shield is placed to overlap the antenna, which is combined with the embodiment of Figs. 8-9 of Bok), the combination of Bok and Kim renders obvious the electrostatic shielding layer is connected to a side of the heat dissipation layer facing away from the flat portion; the display module further comprises a spacer (the antenna/near field module may be considered a spacer) located between the bonding portion and the electrostatic shielding layer.
Regarding claim 14, Bok teaches a display module (Abstract, Figs. 8-9), comprising: a display panel comprising a light-emitting side (Fig. 9 at 100) and a backlight side (Fig. 9 at SUB and below) arranged opposite to each other (Fig. 9); a heat dissipation layer coupled to the backlight side of the display panel ([273]; Fig. 9 at PB), the heat dissipation layer comprises a first region and a second region surrounding the first region ([273]; Fig. 9 at PB); and a Near Field Communication (NFC) module ([278], [296]: antenna area APA may contain coil shape, which may be used for near filed communication; Fig. 8 at APA according to Fig. 9), wherein at least a part of an orthogonal projection of the NFC module on the heat dissipation layer is within the first region ([278], [296]: antenna area APA may contain coil shape, which may be used for near filed communication; Fig. 8 at APA according to Fig. 9: the first region may be defined to overlap with the orthogonal projection).
Bok does not expressly teach an electrostatic shielding layer located on a side of the heat dissipation layer facing away from the display panel, and an orthogonal projection of the electrostatic shielding layer on the heat dissipation layer is within the second region. Kim teaches an electrostatic shielding layer (Fig. 7C at CP-1) that partially overlaps an antenna. The suggestion to modify the teaching of Bok by the teaching of Kim is present as both teach mobile display devices with patch antennas. The motivation is to improve signal quality. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Bok and Kim teach mobile display devices with patch antennas, while Bok teaches that a coil antenna for near field communication may be used instead of a radio patch antenna. Because Bok teaches using a coil NFC antenna instead of a patch antenna, located on the backlight side of the display panel, and Kim teaches that the shield and antenna partially overlap (Fig. 7C), the combination of the antenna taught by Bok with the shield taught by Kim renders obvious an electrostatic shielding layer located on a side of the heat dissipation layer facing away from the display panel, and an orthogonal projection of the electrostatic shielding layer on the heat dissipation layer is within the second region.
Regarding claim 15, Bok further teaches a display device, comprising the display module (Abstract; Figs. 8, 9).
Regarding claim 16, Bok further teaches a display device, comprising the display module (Abstract; Figs. 8, 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 and 13 are subject to objection 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, and if the formal objection to claim 13 is successfully addressed.
Claims 5-11 and 13, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights