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 .
Continued Examination Under 35 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
The 03/23/2026 amendments of claims 1 and 4-5 have been noted and entered.
The 03/23/2026 cancellation of claim 3 has been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 10-19, filed 03-23-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4,6-13,15-18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al, US 20170171990 A1 (Kim).
New Grounds for Rejection
New grounds for rejection, prior art reference Kim et al, US 20170171990 A1 (Kim) appears below.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-2,4,6-13,15-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 10617005 B2 (Lee) in view of Kim et al, US 20170171990 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 1; Lee teaches a display panel comprising:
a substrate (Lee: Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: 100) including a display region (DA) and a pad region (PA) spaced apart from the display region (DA) in a first direction (Y-direction);
a plurality of pixels (Fig (4): 150) disposed in the display region (DA) on the substrate (Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA:100);
a plurality of pads (First Pad, Second Pad) disposed in the pad region (PA) on the substrate (100),
each of the plurality of pads (First Pad, Second Pad) including an electrode (Fig (2): PAD1) and an opposite electrode (PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the electrode (PAD1) in a thickness direction (Z-direction) and extending in a second direction (X-direction) crossing the first direction (Y-direction); and
a plurality of transmission lines (Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: 310) respectively connected to the plurality of pads (First Pad and Second Pad);
wherein a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes in the second direction is greater than a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes in the first direction, and
a maximum extension length of each of the electrodes in the second direction is less than the maximum extension length of each of the opposite electrodes in the second direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
780
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
752
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach wherein a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes in the second direction is greater than a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes in the first direction, and a maximum extension length of each of the electrodes in the second direction is less than the maximum extension length of each of the opposite electrodes in the second direction.
Kim teaches wherein a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes (Kim: Fig (4): OPDH) in the second direction (DR1) is greater than a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes (OPDH) in the first direction (DR2), and a maximum extension length of each of the electrodes (VLD) in the second direction (DR1) is less than the maximum extension length of each of the opposite electrodes (OPDH) in the second direction (Additionally, to see the orientation of the electrodes being opposite one another see Fig (5)).
Lee and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lee by constructing the dimensions of the electrodes as disclosed in Kim to more efficiently utilize the space on the electronic board while ensuring a better probability of establishing electrical contact between the two electrodes leading to a more efficient device.
PNG
media_image3.png
843
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display panel of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein each of the electrodes (Lee: Fig (2): PAD1, PAD2) extends in the first direction (Y-direction).
Regarding claim 4; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein each of the electrodes (Lee: Fig (2): PAD2) overlaps one of opposite end portions of a corresponding opposite electrode (PAD1) of the opposite electrodes (PAD1) in a length direction of the corresponding opposite electrode (PAD1).
Regarding claim 6; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein at least one of the opposite electrodes (Lee: Annotated Fig (16) shared in this OA: PAD2 which is included in the First Pad (the structure of the pad can be seen in Fig (2))) overlaps at least two transmission lines (310) of the plurality of transmission lines (310) in a plan view.
PNG
media_image4.png
703
853
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 6.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of transmission lines (Lee: Fig (2): 310) is disposed in a same layer as the electrodes (PAD1).
Regarding claim 8; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the opposite electrodes (Lee: Annotated Fig (16)shared in this OA: PAD2 which is part of First Pad and Second Pad as can be seen in Fig (2)) are disposed in a matrix form along the first direction (Y-direction) and the second direction (X-direction) in a plan view.
Regarding claim 9; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 8.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the electrodes (Lee: Annotated Fig (16)shared in this OA: PAD2 which is part of First Pad and Second Pad as can be seen in Fig (2)) are disposed in a zigzag form in the plan view.
Regarding claim 10; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 8.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of pads includes: a first pad (Lee: Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: First Pad) including: a first electrode (Fig (2): PAD1) connected to a first transmission line (310) among the plurality of transmission lines (Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: 310); and a first opposite electrode (Fig (2): PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the first electrode (PAD1) in the thickness direction; a second pad (Second Pad) including: a second electrode (PAD1) connected to a second transmission line (310) among the plurality of transmission lines (Annotated Fig (1A): 310); and a second opposite electrode (Fig (2): PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the second electrode (PAD1) in the thickness direction (Z-direction) and adjacent to the first opposite electrode (PAD2) in the first direction (Y-direction, this specific last limitation can be seen in a clearer manner in annotated Fig (16) shared in this OA).
Regarding claim 11; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 10.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first electrode (Lee: Fig (2): PAD1) overlaps an end portion of the first opposite electrode (PAD2) in the second direction (X-direction) in the plan view, and wherein the second electrode (PAD1) overlaps an end portion of the second opposite electrode (PAD2) in a third direction (a third direction between the X-direction and the Y-direction) opposite to the second direction (X-direction) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 12; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first opposite electrode (Lee: Annotated Fig (16): PAD2 associated with 581 as part of a Pad feature) overlaps each of the first transmission line (310) and the second transmission line (310) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 13; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 12.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the second opposite electrode (Lee: Annotated Fig (1): PAD2 as part of the First Pad feature)overlaps the second transmission line (310), and is spaced apart from the first transmission line (310) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 15; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the second transmission line (Lee: Annotated Fig (16) shared in this OA: 310) is spaced apart from the first transmission line (310) in the third direction (a direction between the X-direction and the Y-direction) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 16; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 11.
However, Lee does not teach wherein each of the first transmission line and the second transmission line is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode in the plan view.
Kim teaches wherein each of the first transmission line (Kim: Annotated Fig (8) shared in this OA: First Transmission Line) and the second transmission line (Second Transmission Line) is disposed between the first electrode (First Pad) and the second electrode (Second Pad) in the plan view.
Lee and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by constructing the first and second transmission lines between the first and second electrodes as disclosed in Kim to minimize the use of space in the circuit leading to higher density of components on the circuit which leads to a higher performing display.
PNG
media_image5.png
898
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of pads further includes: a third pad (Lee: Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: Third Pad) including: a third electrode (Fig (2): PAD1) disposed connected to a third transmission line (310) among the plurality of transmission lines (Annotated Fig (1A) shared in this OA: 310); and a third opposite electrode (Fig (2): PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the third electrode (PAD1) in the thickness direction and adjacent to the second opposite electrode (PAD2) in the first direction (Y-direction), and wherein the third electrode (PAD1) overlaps an end portion of the third opposite electrode (PAD2) in the second direction (X-direction) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 18; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 17.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first opposite electrode (Lee: Fig (2): PAD2) overlaps each of the first transmission line (Annotated Fig (16): 310, where PAD2 is a portion of the First Pad as can be seen from Fig (2)), the second transmission line (310), and the third transmission line (310) in the plan view, wherein the second opposite electrode (PAD2 as part of the Second Pad) overlaps each of the second transmission line (310) and the third transmission line (310), and is spaced apart from the first transmission line (310) in the plan view, and wherein the third opposite electrode (PAD2 as part of the Third Pad) overlaps the third transmission line (310), and is spaced apart from each of the first transmission line (310) and the second transmission line (310) in the plan view.
Regarding claim 23; Lee in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach further comprising an organic insulating layer disposed between the electrodes and the opposite electrodes, and wherein each of the opposite electrodes contacts a corresponding electrode of the electrodes through a contact hole defined in the organic insulating layer.
Kim teaches further comprising an organic insulating layer (Kim: Fig (9): BS, [0098]: “The base substrate BS is formed of a flexible material, for example, polyimide.”, where polyimide is considered an organic material for being a polymer that contains crabon based compounds) disposed between the electrodes (VLD) and the opposite electrodes (OPDH), and wherein each of the opposite electrodes (OPDH) contacts a corresponding electrode (VLD) of the electrodes through a contact hole defined in the organic insulating layer (BS).
Lee and Kim are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by introducing the organic insulating layer between the electrodes as disclosed in Kim to reduce the chances of unintended short-circuits between the different conductive elements of the device leading to a more reliable device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24; Referenced prior art sources teach wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes: a transistor including an active layer, a gate electrode disposed on the active layer, and a source electrode and a drain electrode disposed on the gate electrode; and a light-emitting element including an anode electrode disposed on the source electrode and the drain electrode, an emission layer disposed on the anode electrode, and a cathode electrode disposed on the emission layer.
However, Lee alone or in combination with other available art does not teach wherein each of the electrodes is disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode, and each of the opposite electrodes is disposed in a same layer as the anode electrode.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Lee et al, US 20210181814 A1 (Lee ‘814); discloses a display device that has a display area and a pad area with rectangular pads and electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights