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 .
Remarks
The 12/24/2025 amendments of claims 1, 10, 17 and 25 have been noted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 08/26/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-12, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 17-18 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. Therefore, the rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 12-20, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 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 Oh et al, US 10312313 B2 (Oh).
New Grounds for Rejection
New grounds for rejection, prior art reference Oh et al, US 10312313 B2 (Oh) appear 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 10617005 B2 (Lee) in view of Oh et al, US 10312313 B2 (Oh).
Regarding claim 1; Lee teaches a display panel comprising: a substrate (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 disposed in the display region (DA) on the substrate (100); a plurality of pads ((First Pad) and (Second Pad)) disposed in the pad region (PA) on the substrate (100), each of the plurality of pads ((First Pad) and (Second Pad)) including an electrode (PAD1) and an opposite electrode (PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the electrode (PAD1) in a thickness direction and extending in a second direction (X-direction) crossing the first direction (Y-direction); and a plurality of transmission lines (310) respectively connected to the plurality of pads ((First Pad) and (Second Pad)).
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.
However, Oh teaches wherein a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes (P4) in the second direction (D2) is greater than a maximum extension length of the opposite electrodes (P4) in the first direction (D1). Lee and Oh 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 making the maximum extension length of the opposite electrode in the second direction larger than its maximum extension length in the first direction as disclosed in Oh to improve the chances of making an electrical connection between the electrodes and thus make the device production process more efficient.
PNG
media_image3.png
854
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
766
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein each of the electrodes ((PAD1) and (PAD2)) extends in the first direction (Y-direction).
Regarding claim 3; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 2.
Further, Lee teaches wherein a width of each of the electrodes (PAD1) in the second direction (X-direction) is less than a length of each of the opposite electrodes (PAD2) in the second direction (X-direction).
Regarding claim 4; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 3.
Further, Lee teaches wherein each of the electrodes (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 Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein at least one of the opposite electrodes (PAD2) overlaps at least two transmission lines (310) of the plurality of transmission lines (310) in a plan view (see annotated Fig (16) – Lee).
PNG
media_image5.png
703
853
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 6.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of transmission lines (310) is disposed in a same layer as the electrodes (PAD1).
Regarding claim 8; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 1.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the opposite electrodes (PAD2) 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 Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 8.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the electrodes (PAD1) are disposed in a zigzag form in the plan view (see annotated Fig (16) – Lee).
Regarding claim 10; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 8.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of pads includes: a first pad (First Pad) including: a first electrode (PAD1) connected to a first transmission line (310) among the plurality of transmission lines (310); and a first opposite electrode (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 (310); and a second opposite electrode (PAD2) disposed on and opposite to the second electrode (PAD1) in the thickness direction and adjacent to the first opposite electrode (PAD2) in the first direction (Y-direction).
Regarding claim 11; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 10.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first electrode (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 opposite to the second direction in the plan view.
Regarding claim 12; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first opposite electrode ((PAD2) associated with (581)) overlaps each of the first transmission line (310) and the second transmission line in the plan view.
Regarding claim 13; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 12.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the second opposite electrode (PAD2) 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 Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the second transmission line (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 17; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 11.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of pads further includes: a third pad (Third Pad - see annotated Fig (1) of Lee) including: a third electrode (PAD1) disposed connected to a third transmission line (310) among the plurality of transmission lines (310); and a third opposite electrode (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 Oh teaches all the disclosed limitations of claim 17.
Further, Lee teaches wherein the first opposite electrode (PAD2) overlaps each of the first transmission line (310), the second transmission line (310), and the third transmission line (310) in the plan view, wherein the second opposite electrode (PAD2) 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) 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 10617005 B2 (Lee) in view of Oh et al, US 10312313 B2 (Oh) in further view of Kim et al, US 20170171990 A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 16; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the subject matter claimed in claim 11.
However, Lee in view of Oh 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 (First Transmission Line – see annotated Fig (8) of Kim shared in this OA) and the second transmission line (Second Transmission Line – see annotated Fig (8) of Kim shared in this OA) is disposed between the first electrode (First Pad – see annotated Fig (8) of Kim shared in this OA) and the second electrode (Second Pad – see annotated Fig (8) of Kim shared in this OA) in the plan view. Lee in view of Oh 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 in view of Oh 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_image6.png
898
672
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US 10617005 B2 (Lee) in view of Oh et al, US 10312313 B2 (Oh) in further view of Jo et al, US 11031446 B2 (Jo).
Regarding claim 23; Lee in view of Oh teaches all the subject matter claimed in claim 1.
However, Lee in view of Oh 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.
Jo teaches further comprising an organic insulating layer (163a) disposed between the electrodes (130d) and the opposite electrodes (120b), and wherein each of the opposite electrodes (120b) contacts a corresponding electrode (130d) of the electrodes through a contact hole defined in the organic insulating layer (163a). Lee in view of Oh and Jo 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 in view of Oh by introducing the organic insulating layer between the electrodes as disclosed in Jo to reduce the chances of unintended short-circuits between the different conductive elements of the device leading to a more reliable device.
PNG
media_image7.png
641
835
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights