Display module and display apparatus

The examiner has rejected all pending claims as obvious combinations of prior art. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected over Jin (a US publication) combined with Zeng (a Chinese patent cited by the applicant). Claims 9 and 17 add a third reference, Seo, to address a heat dissipation film feature. Obviousness means the examiner believes a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention.

The applicant has three months from December 18, 2025 (extendable to six months with fees) to respond. A response typically argues that the references don't teach or suggest all claim elements, or amends the claims to add features not disclosed in the combination. Attorneys often request examiner interviews to discuss the rejections before filing a written response. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.