DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/11/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-5, 8-9, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20210083036) in view of Kim (US 20190157607).
As per claim 1, Kang discloses a touch display panel (Fig. 1, #10; [0063]-[0064]; [0076]-[0077]),
wherein the touch display panel (#10) comprises a display area (#DA) and a frame area (#NDA) surrounding the display area ([0065]), wherein (Figs. 1-2 discloses) the frame area (#NDA) comprises a lower frame area below the display area (#DA), the lower frame area of the touch display panel comprises a first main body (#NDA), a bending region (#BR) and a second main body (#30), and the second main body (#30) is bent to a back side opposite to a display side of the touch display panel (see Fig. 2),
the touch display panel comprises a base display panel (Fig. 3, #101) and a touch layer (#TSL) on the base display panel ([0076]-[0077]), wherein the touch layer (Fig. 4, #TSL) comprises a touch electrode (#TSP) disposed in the display area (#DA; [0099]), a trace line (#TL1) connected to the touch electrode (#TE) and disposed in the frame area ([0090]-[0093]),
a group of wires (Fig. 4, #TL1, TL2, RL) in a first direction (#DR1) in the first main body, wherein the first direction (#DR1) is a direction from the display area (#DA) to the lower frame area, and the group of wires (#TL1, TL2, RL) in the first direction (#DR1) comprises a trace part (#TP1/TP2) which is a portion of the trace line (#TL1) extending in the first direction ([0090]-[0095]), (Fig. 4 discloses) all wires in the group of wires in the first direction (Kang: #DR1) have a same line width and a same line distance,
wherein the base display panel (#101) comprises a display structure (#EML) and an encapsulation layer (#TFEL) disposed on the display structure (#EML), and the touch layer (#TSL) is disposed on the encapsulation layer (#TFEL; [0077]-[0084]).
However, Kang does not teach a crack detection line at a side of the trace line away from the display area, and in the first main body, the trace line comprises at least one conductive layer which is in a same layer as a conductive layer of the crack detection line, and
a first crack detection part which is a portion of the crack detection line extending in the first direction.
Kim teaches a crack detection line (Fig. 12, #170) at a side of the trace line (#160) away from the display area (#AA), and in the first main body (#NA), the trace line (Fig. 14, #160) comprises at least one conductive layer which is in a same layer as a conductive layer of the crack detection line (#170), and
a first crack detection part (i.e., vertical part of #170) which is a portion of the crack detection line (#170) extending in the first direction (i.e., vertical direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the crack detection line disclosed by Kim to the touch display panel of Kang so as to judge whether or not there is a crack having a high strength, which is generated at the edge of the display panel.
However, the prior art of Kang and Kim do not teach a maximum distance between the first crack detection part and the trace part is less than 10 times a width of the trace part in a direction perpendicular to its extending direction, the line width is between 10 nm and 30 nm, and the line distance is between 15 nm and 30 nm. Official Notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a maximum distance between the first crack detection part and the trace part is less than 10 times a width of the trace part in a direction perpendicular to its extending direction, the line width is between 10 nm and 30 nm, and the line distance is between 15 nm and 30 nm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 2, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein the group of wires in the first direction further comprises a guard line, wherein the guard line comprises a conductive layer which is in a same layer as the conductive layer of the trace line, and is located between the first crack detection part and the trace part, an electrical signal identical as that of the trace line is input to the guard line (Kang: [0091]-[0098]).
As per claim 3, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 2, wherein the group of wires in the first direction further comprises a ground line, wherein the ground line comprises a conductive layer which is in a same layer as the conductive layer of the trace line, and is at a side of the guard line away from the trace part (Kang: [0091]-[0098]).
As per claim 4, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein the group of wires in the first direction further comprises a dummy trace line (Kim: [0108]), wherein the dummy trace line comprises a conductive layer which is in a same layer as the conductive layer of the first crack detection part, and is at a side of the first crack detection part away from the trace part, and the dummy trace line is electrically floating (Kim: [0108]).
As per claim 5, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 4, wherein a number of the dummy trace line is 2 or more (Kang: Fig. 20; [0209]-[0210]).
As per claim 8, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein (Kang: Fig. 7 discloses) the first direction (Kang: #DR1) is perpendicular to a bending axis of the bending region (Kang: #BR).
As per claim 9, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein the touch layer (Kang: #TSL) comprises a first metal layer (Kang: #151), an insulator layer (Kang: #TIL2) and a second metal layer (Kang: #152) stacked one on top of another (Kang: [0107]).
As per claim 12, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein (Kang: Fig. 4 discloses) the touch display panel comprises an extension line part extending from at least a portion of lines in the group of wires (Kang: #TL1, TL2, RL) in the first direction (Kang: #DR1) to the second main body.
As per claim 14, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1, wherein (Kang: Fig. 1 discloses) the second main body has a concave corner.
However, the prior art of Kang and Kim do not teach when the touch display panel is in an unbent state, a distance between the crack detection line and the concave corner is 0.8 mm or more. Official Notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have when the touch display panel is in an unbent state, a distance between the crack detection line and the concave corner is 0.8 mm or more since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 15, Kang in view of Kim discloses a display device comprising the touch display panel according to claim 1 (Kang: [0063]-[0064]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kim in view of Kim (US 20200379595) (Kim’595).
As per claim 10, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 9.
However, the prior art of Kang and Kim do not teach the trace part comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer connected in parallel, and the first crack detection part comprises at least one layer of the first metal layer and the second metal layer.
Kim’595 teaches the trace part (#BD) comprises a first metal layer and a second metal layer connected in parallel, and the first crack detection part comprises at least one layer of the first metal layer and the second metal layer ([0101]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the trace part and the first crack detection part of Kang in view of Kim formed according to Kim’595 so as to provide a conductive nanomaterial such as a silver nanowire and a carbon nanotube.
As per claim 11, Kang in view of Kim discloses the touch display panel according to claim 1.
However, the prior art of Kang and Kim does not teach the crack detection line comprises a second crack detection part at a side of the first crack detection part away from the bending region, wherein the second crack detection part is connected to the first crack detection part and extends in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction; and
the second crack detection part comprises a first line segment and a second line segment alternately disposed in different layers, wherein an end of the first line segment and an end of the second line segment are overlapped with each other, and electrically connected to each other through a via hole in an insulator layer between the different layers.
Kim’595 teaches the crack detection line (Fig. 3, #CD2a) comprises a second crack detection part (i.e. upper left part) at a side of the first crack detection part (i.e., lower right part) away from the bending region (#BR), wherein the second crack detection part is connected to the first crack detection part and extends in a second direction (#y direction) substantially perpendicular to the first direction (x direction); and
the second crack detection part comprises a first line segment and a second line segment alternately disposed in different layers, wherein an end of the first line segment and an end of the second line segment are overlapped with each other, and electrically connected to each other through a via hole in an insulator layer between the different layers ([0101]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the crack detection line of Kang in view of Kim formed according to Kim’595 so as to provide a conductive nanomaterial such as a silver nanowire and a carbon nanotube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 6 in the Remarks, “First, Kim'607 explicitly discloses that the line #160 therein is a power line (see paragraph [0032]). Power voltage generated by the power supply is supplied to a power line 160 of the organic light emitting display panel 100 through power supply terminals 162 disposed on the circuit film 152. Obviously, the power line #160 in Kim'607 does not relate to touch control function, and therefore does not relate to the trace line connecting to a touch electrode as defined in claim 1 of the present application, either. In fact, no component in Kim'607 relates to the touch display function. Hence, Kim'607 cannot provide those skilled in the art any motivation of setting a trace line. Since Kim'607 does not teach a crack detection line #170 at a side of the "trace line" #160, this feature, which is not disclosed by Kang either, is not obvious for those skilled in the art. In view of this, the claim 1 present previously is not obvious“.
The Examiner does not agree. In response to applicant's argument that Kim is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kim discloses on paragraph 0054, “The crack detection line 170 judges whether or not there is a crack having a high strength, which is generated at the edge of the display panel 100 and is thus not blocked by the crack prevention holes 180 and the crack prevention layers 182 and propagates. For this purpose, at least one crack detection line 170 is positioned between at least one of the crack prevention layers 182 and the crack prevention holes 180, and the dam 106. The crack detection line 170 is formed so as to surround at least three sides of the active area AA”.
Additionally, the prior art of Kang discloses on Fig. 4, a trace line #TL1 connected to the touch electrode #TE and disposed in the frame area (see Kang paragraphs 0090-0093).
Therefore, Kang in combination with Kim discloses the limitation of a crack detection line at a side of the trace line away from the display area, and in the first main body, the trace line comprises at least one conductive layer which is in a same layer as a conductive layer of the crack detection line” as recited in claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states on pages 7-8 in the Remarks, “As described in the comparative example in the present application, the distance between the first crack detection part of the crack detection line and the trace part of the trace line was 300 nm, and the width of the trace part of the trace line was 20 nm, so that the fact was 15, which was larger than 10. The condition in the comparative example 1 is the conventional condition in the prior art, and the total defect ratio in comparative example 1 I was about 5%. In contrast, when the distance was reduced to 20 nm in the example 1, the total defect ratio was reduced to less than 1%. The comparison clearly shows the achieved beneficial effect when the distance is set in the unconventional range…The technical effect of the specific ranges of values is also described in paragraphs [0059] and [0070] of the specification of the present application. When the downward extending portion of the PCD line is disposed sufficiently close to the vertical portion of the trace line, i.e., the trace part, the occurrence rate of defects after ESD is significantly reduced. Without being bound to any theory, this is probably because the trace part shares the ESD shock on the downward extending portion of the PCD line to some extent. Preferably, the line width is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm, and the distance is in a range from 15 nm to 30 nm. Such line width and distance achieve a better balance between the process difficulty and the performance. In this case, the PCD lines and so on are also designed to be lines with the same width, and are also arranged in parallel at the same distance outside the trace line. The design of parallel, equal distance and equal width line segments may provide a uniform line distribution, which further reduces the possibility of electrostatic damage”.
However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the total defect ratio was about 5%. In contrast, when the distance was reduced to 20 nm in the example 1, the total defect ratio was reduced to less than 1%, when the downward extending portion of the PCD line is disposed sufficiently close to the vertical portion of the trace line, i.e., the trace part, the occurrence rate of defects after ESD is significantly reduced, Preferably, the line width is in a range from 10 nm to 30 nm, and the distance is in a range from 15 nm to 30 nm. Such line width and distance achieve a better balance between the process difficulty and the performance. The design of parallel, equal distance and equal width line segments may provide a uniform line distribution, which further reduces the possibility of electrostatic damage.) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached on 571 272-7776. 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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627