DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species A/fig. 7, reflected in claims 1-7, 10-20 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being drawn to the nonelected group.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Element, ‘connection region’ cited in claims 1, 3 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1.
…
a connection region where a link line is provided, and a second boundary region between the connection region and the second pad portion
b) Element, ‘second lateral surface’, ‘insertion engraved pattern’ cited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 10:
….
the second lateral surface including an insertion engraved pattern concavely recessed into the second lateral surface.
According to fig. 9, the insertion engraved pattern (N) concavely recessed into both of the first and second lateral surfaces, not the second lateral surface.
Elements ‘first surface’ ‘second surface’ cited in claims 12, 16 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
d) Element, ‘trench’ cited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered,
e) Element, ‘first trench’, ‘second trench’ cited in claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JEON et al. (US 20210202686 A1, hereinafter Jeon‘686).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jeon‘686 teaches, “A light emitting display apparatus (fig. 1-39; ¶ [0073] - ¶ [0943]) comprising:
a first base substrate (100, fig. 17) including a first pad portion (see annotation), a display area (see annotation), and a first boundary region (see annotation) between the display area and the first pad portion, the first pad portion including a first pad (111) connected to a routing line (400); and
a second base substrate (200) including a second pad portion (see annotation), a connection region (see annotation) where a link line (251) is provided, and a second boundary region (see annotation) between the connection region and the second pad portion, the second pad portion including a second pad (211) connected to the routing line (400); wherein:
the second base substrate (200) is bonded (by coupling member 300) to a rear surface of the first base substrate (100),
a thickness of the first base substrate (100) in the first pad portion (in chamfer 100c) is less than a thickness of the first base substrate (100) in the first boundary region, and
a thickness of the second base substrate in the second pad portion (in chamfer 200c) is less than a thickness of the second base substrate (200) in the second boundary region”.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHAO; Jiao et al. (US 20210366378 A1, hereinafter Zhao‘378).
Regarding independent claim 12, Zhao‘378 teaches, “A light emitting display apparatus (fig. 1-4; ¶ [0032] - ¶ [0063]) comprising:
a first body including a central area (see annotated fig. 4), a first pad portion, and a first boundary region between the central area and the first pad portion, the first pad portion including a flat portion and a slope portion between the first boundary region and the flat portion on a first surface (top surface) of the first pad portion, a thickness of the first body in the flat portion of the first pad portion is less than a thickness of the first body in the first boundary region;
a first pad (91) on the flat portion of the first pad portion; and
a routing line (11) extending on the first surface of the first pad portion and on a second surface (side surface) of the first pad portion that meets the first surface, the routing line (11) in contact with the first pad (91)”.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao‘378 further teaches, “The light emitting display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first pad includes a slope portion (see annotated fig. 4) proximate to the slope portion of the first pad portion”.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao‘378 further teaches, “The light emitting display apparatus of claim 13, wherein the routing line (11) is in contact with the slope portion of the first pad”.
Regarding claim 15, Zhao‘378 further teaches, “The light emitting display apparatus of claim 12, wherein the routing line (11) is on the first pad (91)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon‘686 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finkelstein, Alan (US 20030201331 A1, hereinafter Finkelstein‘331).
Regarding claim 7, Jeon‘686 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
Jeon‘686 further teaches, wherein the routing line (400) connected to the first pad (111) extends to the second pad portion and is connected to the second pad (211) through a first lateral surface of the first base substrate (100) and a first lateral surface of the second base substrate (200), and
wherein each of the first lateral surface (100c) of the first base substrate (100) and the first lateral surface (200c) of the second base substrate (200) ((includes a lateral engraved pattern)), and the routing line (400) extends ((in the lateral engraved pattern)) in each of the first lateral surface (100c) of the first base substrate (100) and the first lateral surface (200c) of the second base substrate (200)”.
But Jeon‘686 is silent upon the provision of wherein each of the first lateral surface of the first base substrate and the first lateral surface of the second base substrate includes a lateral engraved pattern, and the routing line extends in the lateral engraved pattern in each of the first lateral surface of the first base substrate and the first lateral surface of the second base substrate.
However, Finkelstein‘331 teaches placement of routing lines (429, fig. 4B) on a surface of substrate (420) using engraved pattern (424, cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Jeon‘686 and Finkelstein‘331 to place routing lines on a surface using engraved pattern according to the teachings of Finkelstein‘331 with a general motivation of protecting the routing from external damage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon‘686 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 4183629 A, Nishimura‘629).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon‘686 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
Jeon‘686 further teaches, wherein the first base substrate (100) includes a first lateral surface (100c) adjacent to the first pad portion and the second pad portion and a second lateral surface (200c) different from the first lateral surface (100c), ((the second lateral surface including an insertion engraved pattern concavely recessed into the second lateral surface)).
But Jeon‘686 is silent upon the provision of wherein the second lateral surface including an insertion engraved pattern concavely recessed into the second lateral surface.
However, Nishimura‘629 teaches surfaces of substrate having insertion engraved pattern (31, fig. 8) concavely recessed into the surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Jeon‘686 and Nishimura‘629 to include insertion engraved pattern on a surface according to the teachings of Nishimura‘629 with a general motivation of placing conductors/routing lines in the insertion engraved pattern to protect them from external damage.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao‘378 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Finkelstein‘331.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao‘378 teaches all the limitations described in claim 12.
But Zhao‘378 is silent upon the provision of wherein the second surface of the first pad portion includes a trench, and the routing line is in the trench.
However, Finkelstein‘331 teaches surfaces of substrate (420, fig. 4B) having a trench (424), and a routing line (429) is placed in the trench.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhao‘378 and Finkelstein‘331 to include trench on a surface according to the teachings of Finkelstein‘331 with a general motivation of placing routing lines in the trench to protect the routing lines from external damage.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao‘378 and Finkelstein‘331 further teach, “The light emitting display apparatus of claim 16, wherein the second surface (side surface, Zhao‘378) of the first pad portion extends (horizontally) beyond the routing line (11)”.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon‘686 in view of Finkelstein‘331.
Regarding independent claim 18, Jeon‘686 teaches, “A light emitting display apparatus (fig. 1-39; ¶ [0073] - ¶ [0943]) comprising:
a first base substrate (100, see annotated fig. 17) including a first pad portion (see annotation), a display area (see annotation), and a first boundary region (see annotation) between the display area and the first pad portion,
the first pad portion including ((a first trench)) [routing line 400] that extends along a front surface and an edge surface of the first pad portion; and
a second base substrate (200) having a rear surface (top surface) bonded to a rear surface (bottom surface) of the first base substrate (100),
the second base substrate (200) including a second pad portion (see annotation), a connection region (see annotation), and a second boundary region (see annotation) between the connection region and the second pad portion,
the second pad portion including ((a second trench)) [routing line 400] that extends along a front surface and an edge surface of the second pad portion, the ((second trench)) [routing line 400] in communication with the ((first trench)) [routing line 400];
a first pad (111) ((in the first trench));
a second pad (211) ((in the second trench)); and
a routing line (400) ((in both the first trench and the second trench and)) in contact with both the first pad (111) and the second pad (211).
PNG
media_image3.png
896
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Jeon‘686 is silent upon the provision of a first trench along a front surface and an edge surface of the first pad portion, a second trench along a front surface and an edge surface of the second pad portion, the first trench and the second trench are in communication with each other, the first pad in the first trench, the second pad in the second trench and the routing line in the first and second trenches.
However, Finkelstein‘331 teaches placing routing line (429, fig. 4B; ¶ [0025]) and pads (‘electronic components’ 412, 414) in a continuous trench (424) on a surface of a substrate (420). Modifying Jeon‘686 by including trenches with the pads and routing lines will teach the missing limitations in Jeon‘686.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Jeon‘686 and Finkelstein‘331 to place routing lines on a surface in a trench line according to the teachings of Finkelstein‘331 with a general motivation of protecting the routing line and electronic componenets from external damage.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon‘686 and Finkelstein‘331 further teach, “The light emitting display apparatus of claim 18, wherein the routing line (400, fig. 17 of Jeon‘686 and 429, fig. 4B of Finkelstein‘331) is fully embedding in the first trench and the second trench (424) along the edge surfaces of the first pad portion and the second pad portion”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 11 and 19 are 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 dependent claim 2, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: “wherein the first pad portion comprises: a first slope portion inclined from the first boundary region; and a first flat portion extending toward an end of the first base substrate from the first slope portion, and the second pad portion comprises: a second slope portion inclined from the second boundary region; and a second flat portion extending toward an end of the second base substrate from the second slope portion”.
Claims 3-6 and 11 are also objected as they depend on objected claim
Regarding dependent claim 19, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: wherein the first pad includes a slope portion proximate to the first boundary region, and the routing line is on and in contact with the slope portion of the first pad.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST.
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 on (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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817