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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 December 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Species 1 embodiment in the reply filed on 17 March 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 7-10, drawn to a nonelected embodiment of the invention, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
However, Applicant rebuts the Office's prima facie case of obviousness by explaining, below, how the claimed range of "72 wt% to 85 wt%" is not just an arbitrary range, but instead is an important and critical range that produces a new result not disclosed in the prior art (i.e., a new result that is different in "kind" not just different in "degree"). In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
In particular, the instant specification (e.g., at paragraphs [0065], [0100]-[0102]) explains that (i) if the wt% is smaller than 72%, then the resistance of the side line is significantly increased thereby creating more heat), and (ii) if the wt% is greater than 85%, then the processability is significantly lowered. Therefore, the specification explains how the specific range of "72 wt% to 85 wt%" is important and critical, and therefore patentably distinguishable from Rantala's range of"60 to 95%."
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 8 December 2025) at 6. At the outset, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the present office action establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for currently amended independent claim 1, set forth in the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, below.
The Examiner further asserts that what evidence Applicant presents with regard to nonobviousness is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding nonobviousness, Applicant appears to argue that the claimed 72 wt% to 85 wt% conductive particle content range is critical, alleging the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
“Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected.” MPEP § 716.02 (citing In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “To be particularly probative, evidence of unexpected results must establish that there is a difference between the results obtained and those of the closest prior art, and that the difference would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind—i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.” MPEP § 716.02 (citing UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693 (Fed. Cir. 2023)).
In the instant case, Applicant provides essentially no discussion of any evidence of a difference between the results obtained when the conductive particle content ranges between 72 wt% to 85 wt%, as claimed in claim 1, and when the conductive particle content ranges from 60% to 95% by weight, or when the conductive particle content is 81 wt% (i.e., within the claimed 72 wt% to 85 wt% range), as disclosed in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0212113 (filed June 22, 2015) (hereinafter “Rantala”). Instead, similar to Applicant’s previous discussion of the purported benefits of the 0.5 μm to 1 μm conductive particle size, Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection (filed 28 July 2025) at 6, Applicant opts for a general discussion of the undesirability of a conductive particle content outside of the claimed range, rather than asserting that conductive particle content within the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range (which completely encompasses the claimed range). See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”). Thus, the Examiner asserts that Applicant’s arguments and evidence of unexpected results are of little probative value, as the arguments and evidence do little to prove greater than expected results, superiority of a property shared with the prior art, the presence of an unexpected property within the claimed range, or absence of an expected property within the claimed range. See MPEP § 716.02(a)(I)-(IV).
The Examiner asserts that instead, the beneficial results of conductive particle content within the claimed 72 wt% to 85 wt% range are entirely expected and disclosed by Rantala. See MPEP § 716.02(c)(II); see also Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 8 December 2025) at 6 (“(i) if the wt% is smaller than 72%, then the resistance of the side line is significantly increased thereby creating more heat), and (ii) if the wt% is greater than 85%, then the processability is significantly lowered”). Regarding the 60% to 95% by weight range, in [0161], Rantala states: “If the siloxane material is to be used where electrical conductivity is desired, such as in a semiconductor package, the particles may be metal particles added at from 60 to 95% by weight.” Further, in one example of an electrically conductive embodiment disclosed in [0143], Rantala states: “The sintering or melting of the smaller particles prior to substantial polymerization of the siloxane material, allows for greater interconnectivity of a formed metal ‘lattice’ which increases the final electrical conductivity of the cured layer.” Conductivity, a key concern in Rantala with respect to conductive particle content, correlates to lower resistivity, and thus a result of increased heat dissipation. Further, Rantala specifically mentions heat dissipation as a concern of the disclosure in [0004], stating: “As LEDs become increasingly brighter, heat dissipation becomes an increasing concern, as heat build-up can degrade the LED performance. . . . The properties of known polymer compositions are inadequate for example with regard thermal stability.”
The discussion of various process parameters, including melting or sintering temperature as discussed in [0143] and desired viscosities before and after introduction of particles as discussed in [0165] in Rantala also appears to at least generically overlap with Applicant’s purported “processability” result, which appears only once in the disclosure at [0065] with no discussion of what aspect of the side line “processability” is affected, other than merely stating that it makes the side line “difficult to form.” Accordingly, a conductive particle content ranging from 60% to 95% by weight, including when the conductive particle content is 81 wt%, as disclosed in Rantala, provides the same benefits as conductive particle content ranging from 72 wt% to 85 wt%, as disclosed in claim 1 of the instant application, namely, reduced resistivity and thus reduced heat, as well as increased processability.
Accordingly, on consideration of the patentability of the claimed invention and evaluation of the arguments and evidence proffered by Applicant, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant fails to establish that the results are unexpected and significant. See MPEP § 716.02(b) (“The evidence relied upon should establish ‘that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.’”) (quoting Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)). Weighed against the evidence supporting the prima facie case of obviousness, the evidence of allegedly unexpected properties proposed by Applicant does not have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, and thus is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02(c)(I).
Moreover, to the extent Applicant argues that “the resistance of the side line is significantly increased thereby creating more heat” and “the processability is significantly lowered” are “a new result that is different in ‘kind’ not just different in ‘degree’,” Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment (filed 8 December 2025) at 6, of the claimed 72 wt% to 85 wt% range, the Examiner respectfully notes that such assertions are clearly unsupported by case law and the MPEP. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1575 (“It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.”); see also MPEP § 2112 (“The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Applicant further states:
Furthermore, Applicant notes that the Office Action also rejected previously presented claim 3 by citing Rantala at paragraph [0176] as allegedly disclosing a silver filled adhesive in which silver flakes are added at 81g with a molarity of 81%(which is within the claimed range of 72%-85%). However, Applicant notes that the average size of Rantala's silver flake particles in this example is "4 micrometer" rather than the claimed "0.5 μm to 1 μm" as required by claim 1.
Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection (filed 8 December 2025) at 6-7. The Examiner respectfully notes that nowhere in the instant application does Applicant disclose wherein the claimed particle size of 0.5 μm to 1 μm is an average particle size. Applicant merely claims “wherein the plurality of side lines includes a conductive particle having a particle size of 0.5 μm to 1 μm.” The Examiner further notes that an average (D50) particle size encompasses a range of particle sizes under 4 microns, which may include a particle size of 0.5 μm to 1 μm.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and remarks are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0013846 (published Jan. 9, 2020) (hereinafter “Kwon”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0212113 (filed June 22, 2015) (hereinafter “Rantala”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kwon discloses: A display device (FIG. 1C, display device 1000, [0040]), comprising:
a first substrate (FIG. 1C, first substrate 110, [0042]) including an active area (FIG. 1D, active area AA, [0044]) and a non-active area (FIG. 1D, non-active area NA, [0044]) surrounding the active area (FIG. 1D, [0044]: “In the first substrate 110, an active area AA and a non-active area NA surrounding the active area AA may be defined.”);
a display unit (FIG. 1C, display unit 120, [0042]) including an organic light emitting diode ([0046]: “The display unit 120 displays an image. In one embodiment, an organic light emitting element and a circuit unit for driving the organic light emitting element are included in the display unit 120.”) disposed on an upper surface of the first substrate (FIG. 1C, [0049]: “Specifically, the display unit 120 is on the first or top surface 102 of the first substrate 110 and the second substrate 130 is on the display unit.”);
a plurality of signal lines (FIG. 1C, signal lines 150, [0042]) disposed on the upper surface of the first substrate (FIG. 1C, [0051]: “Referring to FIG. 1C, the plurality of signal lines 150 are disposed on a top surface 102 of the first substrate 110 and the plurality of link lines 160 are disposed on a rear surface 104 of the first substrate 110.”) and electrically connected to the display unit ([0051]: “The plurality of signal lines 150 are electrically connected to components of the display unit 120 to transfer signals to the display unit 120.”);
a plurality of link lines (FIG. 1C, link lines 160, [0042]) disposed below the first substrate (FIG. 1C, [0051]: “Referring to FIG. 1C, the plurality of signal lines 150 are disposed on a top surface 102 of the first substrate 110 and the plurality of link lines 160 are disposed on a rear surface 104 of the first substrate 110.”); and
a plurality of side lines (FIG. 1C, side lines 170, [0042]) disposed on a side surface of the first substrate (FIG. 1C, [0056]: “Referring to FIG. 1C, the plurality of side lines 170 are disposed on a side surface 106 of the first substrate 110.”) and connecting the plurality of signal lines and the plurality of link lines (FIG. 1C, [0056]: “The plurality of side lines 170 serve to electrically connect the plurality of signal lines 150 disposed on the top surface 102 of the first substrate 110 to the plurality of link lines 160 disposed on the rear surface 104 of the first substrate 110.”).
Kwon does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of side lines includes a conductive particle having a particle size of 0.5 μm to 1 μm wherein the plurality of side lines further includes a binder resin, and wherein the plurality of side lines includes the conductive particle of 72 wt% to 85 wt% with respect to a sum of the conductive particle and the binder resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Rantala discloses a display device (FIG. 5, [0049]: “Illustrated in FIG. 5 is a flip chip type package for an LED device,”) including a plurality of electrical connection or pad areas, 47, connected via a siloxane particle adhesive 46. Regarding the siloxane particle adhesive, in [0100], Rantala states: “The obtained siloxane polymer may then be combined with additional components depending upon the final desired use of the polymer. Preferably, the siloxane polymer is combined with a filler to form a composition . . . .” Rantala further states, in [0138]: “The filler can be particles that are any suitable metal or semi-metal particles such as those selected from gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium . . . .”
Regarding the siloxane particle adhesive, Rantala discusses the use of resins in [0101]: “Cross-linking silicon or non-silicon based resins and oligomers can be used to enhance cross linking between siloxane polymers. The functionality of added cross-linking oligomer or resin is chosen by functionality of siloxane polymer. If for example epoxy based alkoxysilanes were used during polymerization of siloxane polymer, then epoxy functional oligomer or resin can be used.”
Regarding the conductive particle size, Rantala states in [0141] that “[p]articles of any suitable size can be used, depending upon the final application,” and in [0142] discloses: “In one example, the smaller particles have an average particle size of less than 1 micron and melt or sinter at a temperature less than the bulk temperature of the same material. Depending upon the particle material selected, and the average particle size, the melting and sintering temperatures will be different.”
Regarding the conductive particle content, Rantala states in [0161]: “If the siloxane material is to be used where electrical conductivity is desired, such as in a semiconductor package, the particles may be metal particles added at from 60 to 95% by weight.”
Rantala follows with an example of a conductive compound in [0176]: “A siloxane polymer with epoxy as a crosslinking functional group (18.3 g, 18.3%), silver flake with average size (D50) of 4 micrometer (81 g, 81%), 3-methacrylatepropyltrimethoxysilane (0.5 g, 0.5%) and King Industries K-PURE CXC-1612 thermal acid generator (0.2%) where mixed together using high shear mixer. The composition has a viscosity of 15000 mPas.”
In [0143] Rantala provides an example of the effect of the siloxane particle adhesive: “As one example, very small silver nanoparticles can melt at less than 120° C., and sinter at even lower temperatures. As such, if desired, the smaller particles can have a melting or sintering temperature equal to or lower than the polymer curing temperature, so as to form a web of melted or sintered particles connecting the larger particles together prior to full cross-linking and curing of the siloxane polymeric material. . . . The sintering or melting of the smaller particles prior to substantial polymerization of the siloxane material, allows for greater interconnectivity of a formed metal “lattice” which increases the final electrical conductivity of the cured layer. Substantial polymerization prior to substantial sintering or melting of the smaller particles decreases the amount of formed metal “lattice” and lowers the electrical conductivity of the final cured layer. Of course, it is also possible to provide only the particles of the smaller average particle size, e.g. sub micron size, which can still achieve the benefits of lower sintering and melting points as compared to the same bulk material (or the same particles having an average particle size of greater than 1 micron for example).”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Kwon by substituting the siloxane particle adhesive of Rantala containing resin, having an average particle size of less than 1 μm, and a particle content ranging from 60 wt% to 95 wt% for the patterned metal layer of the side lines 170 of Kwon in order to ensure strong and stable performance of the side lines across a broad range of temperatures, thereby maximizing the lifetime of the display device, which Rantala discloses in [0005], [0010], and [0015] as a characteristic of the disclosed siloxane particle adhesive. See Rantala [0100], [0101], [0141]-[0143], [0161], [0176].
The ranges disclosed in Rantala “discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range,” and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I) (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); see also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1382 (“In fact, when, as here, the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”) (citing In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (emphasis added).
Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed ranges are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the plurality of side lines (FIG. 1C, side lines 170) includes a conductive part formed by sintering the conductive particles (Rantala [0143]: “[I]f desired, the smaller particles can have a melting or sintering temperature equal to or lower than the polymer curing temperature, so as to form a web of melted or sintered particles connecting the larger particles together prior to full cross-linking and curing of the siloxane polymeric material. . . . The sintering or melting of the smaller particles prior to substantial polymerization of the siloxane material, allows for greater interconnectivity of a formed metal “lattice” which increases the final electrical conductivity of the cured layer.”) and a resin part formed by curing the binder resin (Rantala [0143]: “[I]f desired, the smaller particles can have a melting or sintering temperature equal to or lower than the polymer curing temperature, so as to form a web of melted or sintered particles connecting the larger particles together prior to full cross-linking and curing of the siloxane polymeric material. . . . Substantial polymerization prior to substantial sintering or melting of the smaller particles decreases the amount of formed metal “lattice” and lowers the electrical conductivity of the final cured layer.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon in view of Rantala further discloses wherein the display device (FIG. 1C, display device 1000) further comprises a protective layer (FIG. 1C, insulating layer 180, [0042]) which is formed as one layer (FIG. 1E, [0070]: “As shown in FIG. 1E, the insulating layer 180 is formed as a single layer . . . .”) to enclose all side surfaces of the first substrate and cover all the plurality of side lines (FIG. 1E, [0070]: “As shown in FIG. 1E, the insulating layer 180 is formed as a single layer to cover all of the plurality of side lines 170 and disposed continuously along the edge of the first substrate 110.”) or is patterned so as to correspond to each of the plurality of side lines (FIG. 2B, [0070]: “However, the insulating layer 280 shown in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B has a plurality of patterned insulating structures corresponding to the respective side lines 170.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon in view of Rantala further discloses wherein the display device (FIG. 1C, display device 1000) further comprises a second substrate (FIG. 1C, second substrate 130, [0042]) disposed on the display unit and facing the first substrate (FIG. 1C, [0049]: “FIG. 1C further shows the second substrate 130 disposed on the display unit 120, opposite to the first substrate 110.”), wherein the first substrate (FIG. 1C, first substrate 110) protrudes outwardly from the second substrate and the plurality of signal lines is disposed on the protruding first substrate (FIG. 1C, the first substrate 110 protrudes relative to the second substrate 130 and signal lines 150, such that there is a step between ends of the first substrate 110 and the second substrate 130, so that the plurality of signal lines 150 extend beyond a side surface of the second substrate 130, [0109]), and the plurality of side lines (FIG. 1C, side lines 170) is disposed to be in contact with exposed upper surface and side surface of the plurality of signal lines (FIG. 1C, the plurality of signal lines 150 extend beyond a side surface of the second substrate 130 such that top surfaces of the plurality of signal lines 150 are exposed to the outside and may form pads PAD1 and PAD2 on the step, wherein the plurality of side lines 170 are disposed to cover the exposed top surfaces of the plurality of signal lines 150, [0109]-[0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813