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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 6-7 and 11-13 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1, 3-13 follows.
Specification
Corrections to the Specification filed April 08, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer.” (amended claims 1, 12 and 13) (emphasis added) in the application as filed.
Applicant must cancel the un-support new matters in response to the Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Amended claims 1, 12 and 13 recite: “wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer”
The term “a central region of the planarization layer” in claims 1, 12 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a central region of the planarization layer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is not known, either in the claim(s) or the specification, what is “a central region of the planarization layer” referring to?
Amended Claim 12 recites: A display device comprising a display substrate, wherein the display device comprises a base substrate, …
The term “A display device” is a non-limiting preamble.
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are the same as that of claim 1.
Therefore, the scope of claim 12 is similar to that of claim 1.
Applicant is advised to cancel either claim 1 or claim 12 for undue multiplicity. (See MPEP 2173.05 (n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOON et al. (US. Pub. No. 20180197484) of record.
With respect to claim 1, As best understood by the Examiner, MOON teaches a display substrate as claimed including a base substrate (SUB), and a drive circuit layer disposed on the base substrate, the display substrate comprising an active area (DA) and a fan-out area (BA), the drive circuit layer being provided with a crack-stopping groove (OPN1), the crack- stopping groove (OPN1) being located between the active area (DA) and the fan-out area (BA),
wherein the drive circuit layer comprises an insulating layer (INS1), a signal line (DL), a protective layer (PSV) and a planarization layer (INS4/5) which are laminated in sequence in a direction away from the base substrate (SUB), at least part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) is located in the planarization layer (INS4/5), and the protective layer (PSV) is located on a side of the signal line (DL) away from the substrate (SUB);
wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer. (See FIG. 5).
With respect to claim 3, the crack- stopping groove (OPN1) of MOON penetrates the planarization layer (INS4/5) in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (SUB).
With respect to claim 4, the planarization layer of MOON comprises a first planarization sub-layer (INS4) and a second planarization sub-layer (INS5) which are laminated in sequence in a direction away from the base substrate, and the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) penetrates the first planarization sub-layer and the second planarization sub-layer in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate.
With respect to claim 5, at least a part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) of MOON is located in the protective layer (PSV).
With respect to claim 11, in the direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) of MOON extends in a direction parallel to an interface between the active area (DA) and the fan-out area (BA).
With respect to claim 12, As best understood by the Examiner, MOON teaches a display device comprising a display substrate as claimed, wherein the display device includes a base substrate (SUB), and a drive circuit layer disposed on the base substrate, the display substrate comprising an active area (DA) and a fan-out area (BA), the drive circuit layer being provided with a crack-stopping groove (OPN1), the crack- stopping groove (OPN1) being located between the active area (DA) and the fan-out area (BA),
wherein the drive circuit layer comprises an insulating layer (INS1), a signal line (DL), a protective layer (PSV) and a planarization layer (INS4/5) which are laminated in sequence in a direction away from the base substrate (SUB), at least part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) is located in the planarization layer (INS4/5), and the protective layer (PSV) is located on a side of the signal line (DL) away from the substrate (SUB);
wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer. (See FIG. 5).
With respect to claim 13, As best understood by the Examiner, MOON teaches a method for manufacturing a display substrate as claimed including:
providing a base substrate (SUB);
manufacturing a drive circuit layer on the base substrate; and
forming a crack-stopping groove (OPN1) in the drive circuit layer, wherein the display substrate has an active area (DA) and a fan-out area (BA), and the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) is located between the active area (DA) and the fan-out area,
wherein the drive circuit layer comprises an insulating layer( INS), a signal line (DL), a protective layer (PSV) and a planarization layer (INS4) which are laminated in sequence in a direction away from the base substrate (SUB), at least part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) is located in the planarization layer (INS4), and the protective layer (PSV) is located on a side of the signal line (DL) away from the substrate (SUB),
wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer. (See FIG. 5).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOON ‘484 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of KWON et al (US. Pub. No. 20190280245) of record.
MOON teaches the display substrate as described in claim 5 above including: at least a part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) is located in the protective layer (PSV), wherein in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) in the protective layer.
Thus, MOON is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing the depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove in the protective layer being less than a thickness of the protective layer.
However, KWON teaches a display device including: at least a part of the groove (F) is located in protective layer (110), wherein in direction perpendicular to base substrate, a depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove (F) in the protective layer (110) being less than a thickness of the protective layer (110). (See FIG. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the crack-stopping groove of MOON having the depth in the protective layer being less than the thickness of the protective layer as taught by KWON to prevent creation of an end point that may be a starting point of lamination.
Further, forming a groove by stopping on or in (over etching) the underlayer is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, hence obvious design choice.
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOON ‘484 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KIM et al (US. Pub. No. 2020/0310493) of record.
MOON teaches the display substrate as described in claim 1 above including: in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) in the planarization layer is in the thickness of the planarization layer.
Thus, MOON is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly disclosing a depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove in the protective layer being less than a thickness of the planarization layer.
However, KIM teaches a display device including: in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove (GR2) in the planarization layer (300) is less than a thickness of the planarization layer (300). (See FIG. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form the crack-stopping groove of MOON having the depth in the planarization layer being less than the thickness of the planarization layer as taught by KIM for the same intended purpose of preventing propagation of the crack.
Further, forming a groove by stopping on or in (over etching) the underlayer is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, hence obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 8, the planarization layer of MOON or KIM comprises a first planarization sub-layer (INS4) and a second planarization sub-layer (INS5) which are laminated in sequence in a direction away from the base substrate (SUB), and the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) penetrates the second planarization sub-layer (INS5) in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate.
With respect to claim 9, in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove (OPN1) in the planarization layer of MOON is equal to the thickness of the second planarization sub-layer (INS5).
With respect to claim 10, in the direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the depth of the part of the crack-stopping groove in the planarization layer of MOON is greater than the thickness of the second planarization sub-layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts:
Therefore, Moon fails to disclose or teach "wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer" as recited in amended claim 1.
First of all, the specification fails to provide any support for the claimed limitation: “wherein in a direction parallel to the base substrate, the crack-stopping groove is located in a central region of the planarization layer”.
Secondly, the claims are indefinite because the term “a central region of the planarization layer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Lastly, contrary to the Applicant assertion, the crack-stopping groove 102, FIG. 1, is formed somewhere in the drive circuit layer.
Thus, the crack-stopping groove is not located in a central region of the planarization layer.
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 ANH D MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1710 (Email: Anh.Mai2@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00PM.
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, Sue A Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/ANH D MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights