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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, drawn to Figs. 1-2, claims 1-4, 8-9, 11, and 13-20 in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7, 10, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/09/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Drawings are not “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0040], the SPEC recites “conical granule AU bump 160”. This is inconsistent with the shape of 160 appearing in Fig. 3. The Examiner suggests -- frustoconical granule AU bump 160--.
Irregular spacing appears in the SPEC. See [0039] and [0047], for example, wherein “W ith” appears to include an extraneous space.
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
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 3 and 8 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.
Claim 3 recites “the driving substrate is located in the periphery region”. This is misdescriptive of Fig. 1, wherein driving substrate 110 exists in both a display region an a periphery region. The Examiner suggests --a peripheral portion of the driving substrate is located in the periphery region--.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name BLUETOOTH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a module and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 8: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-4, 9, 11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 20180068632 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20030090614 A1).
As recited in claim 1, Wu et al show a display device 500, comprising: a driving substrate 510 comprising a top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) and a bottom surface (facing away from the viewer in Fig. 5); a microcontroller unit 532 disposed on the top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) of the driving substrate 510; a driving integration circuit 531 disposed on the top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) of the driving substrate 510; and a trace (see line joining 532 and 531) connecting the microcontroller unit 532 and the driving integration circuit 531, wherein the trace (see line joining 532 and 531) is located on the top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) of the driving substrate 510.
As recited in claim 1, Wu et al are silent regarding a flexible printed circuit board electrically connected with the driving substrate and disposed on the top surface of the driving substrate.
As recited in claim 1, Kim et al show a flexible printed circuit board 190 electrically connected (“The integrated driving chip 180 is electrically connected to an external circuit substrate (not shown) through the FPC 190” [0071]) with the driving substrate (insofar as integrated driving chip 180 is construed as constituting part of TFT substrate 120).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a flexible printed circuit board was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a flexible printed circuit board in the device of Wu et al as taught by Kim et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to electrically connect Wu et al’s level shifter 541 to Wu et al’s timing controller 532 and source driver 531 as suggested by Kim et al (“The integrated driving chip 180 is electrically connected to an external circuit substrate (not shown) through the FPC 190” [0071]).
Regarding the limitation “disposed on the top surface of the driving substrate”: There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Furthermore, the recited location was within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited location was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited location in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to try any location, including the recited location, in the absence of criticality.
As recited in claim 2, Wu et al show that the driving substrate 510 comprises a display region (see region occupied by 520) and a periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520), and wherein the microcontroller unit 532 is located (see location of 532 in Fig. 5) in the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520).
As recited in claim 3, to the extent understood, Wu et al show that a peripheral portion (see portion of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520) of the driving substrate 510 is located in the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520).
As recited in claim 4, Wu et al show that the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520) of the driving substrate 510 comprises a connecting region (insofar as any region of 510 may arbitrarily be named a connecting region, including a region where DS1, VS, and CS connect to 510 as shown in Fig. 5) located at a side of the driving substrate 501.
As recited in claim 4, Wu et al are silent regarding whether said connecting region is adjacent to a flexible printed circuit board.
As recited in claim 4, Kim et al show that a connecting region is adjacent (insofar as any region adjacent FPC 190 may be arbitrarily named a connecting region) to a flexible printed circuit board 190.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a connecting region adjacent to a flexible printed circuit board was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a connecting region adjacent to a flexible printed circuit board as suggested by Kim et al in the device of Wu et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to similarly improve similar devices as was well known in the art
As recited in claim 9, Wu et al are silent regarding whether the flexible printed circuit board is folded reversely to the bottom surface of the driving substrate.
Regarding the limitation “folded”: There is no invention in changing the shape of known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the reshaping. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the recited shape was within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the limitation “reversely to the bottom surface”: There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Furthermore, the recited location was within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited shape and location were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited shape and location in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to succumb to longstanding market pressure toward a form factor emulating an old-fashioned sheet of paper as was known in the art.
As recited in claim 11, Wu et al are silent regarding a microcontroller unit control circuit and electrically connected with the microcontroller unit, wherein said microcontroller unit control circuit is disposed on a flexible printed circuit board.
As recited in claim 11, Kim et al show a microcontroller unit control circuit 182 and electrically connected (see Fig. 6, wherein controller 182 is electrically connected to 180 by constituting a portion thereof) with the microcontroller unit 180.
Regarding the limitation “disposed on the flexible printed circuit board”: There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Furthermore, the recited location was within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a microcontroller unit control circuit disposed on a flexible printed circuit board was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited location in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to conserve space on the driving substrate of Wu et al by moving a microcontroller unit control circuit off of the substrate as was known in the art, while maintaining a small distance between the microcontroller unit control circuit and the microcontroller unit as was known in the art.
As recited in claim 13, Wu et al show a display device 500, comprising: a driving substrate 510 comprising a display region (see region of 510 occupied by 520) and a periphery region(see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520); a microcontroller unit 532 disposed in the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520) of the driving substrate 510; and a driving integration circuit 531 disposed in the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520) of the driving substrate 510.
As recited in claim 13, Wu et al are silent regarding a flexible printed circuit board electrically connected with the driving substrate and disposed in the periphery region of the driving substrate.
As recited in claim 13, Kim et al show a flexible printed circuit board 190 electrically connected (“The integrated driving chip 180 is electrically connected to an external circuit substrate (not shown) through the FPC 190” [0071]) with the driving substrate (insofar as integrated driving chip 180 is construed as constituting part of TFT substrate 120) and (necessarily) disposed in a periphery region (see peripheral location of 180) of the driving substrate 120.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a flexible printed circuit board electrically connected with the driving substrate and disposed in the periphery region of the driving substrate was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a flexible printed circuit board in the device of Wu et al as taught by Kim et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to electrically connect Wu et al’s level shifter 541 to Wu et al’s timing controller 532 and source driver 531 as suggested by Kim et al (“The integrated driving chip 180 is electrically connected to an external circuit substrate (not shown) through the FPC 190” [0071]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited location in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to reduce material costs by connecting a flexible printed circuit board to a periphery where its connecting microcontroller unit is located would have been readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As recited in claim 14, Wu et al show that the driving substrate 510 comprises a top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) and a bottom surface (facing away from the viewer in Fig. 5), and the display device 500 further comprise: a trace (see line joining 532 and 531) connecting the microcontroller unit 532 and the driving integration circuit 531, wherein the trace (see line joining 532 and 531) is located on the top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) of the driving substrate 510.
As recited in claim 15, Wu et al show that the trace is straight (see straight line between 532 and 531 in Fig. 5).
As recited in claim 16, Wu et al show that the microcontroller unit 532 is located on the top surface (facing the viewer in Fig. 5) of the driving substrate 501.
As recited in claim 17, Wu et al show that the periphery region (see portion of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520) comprises a connecting region (insofar as any region of 510 may arbitrarily be named a connecting region, including a region where DS1, VS, and CS connect to 510 as shown in Fig. 5) located at a side of the driving substrate 501, and the trace (see line joining 532 and 531) is located at the periphery region (see region of 510 surrounding region occupied by 520).
As recited in claim 17, Wu et al are silent regarding whether said connecting region is adjacent to a flexible printed circuit board.
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for claim 4.
Regarding claims 18-20: Wu et al are silent regarding the recited relative locations.
There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited locations were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited relative locations in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to try any location(s), including the recited relative location(s), in the absence of criticality, as was known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights