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 Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0067406).
Re claim 1, Lee teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1 & 4, [0053, 0059, 0101], a display device comprising:
-a display panel (110) including a non-display area (BA, PA) in which a panel pad (IPP-110) is disposed; and
-a pad portion (PA) which contacts the non-display area (BA, PA) of the display panel (110),
wherein the pad portion (PA) includes an alignment mark (AM-110) overlapping the panel pad (IPP-110),
the panel pad (IPP-110) includes: a first vertical portion (left portion) and a second vertical portion (right portion) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (A2), wherein the alignment mark (AM-110) is disposed inside an area defined by the first vertical portion (left portion) and the second vertical portion (right portion);
a first horizontal portion (top portion) connected to the first vertical portion (left portion), and
a second horizontal portion (bottom portion) connected to the second vertical portion (right pad), and
the first horizontal portion (top portion) and the second horizontal portion (bottom portion) are spaced apart from each other in a second direction (A1) crossing the first direction (A2).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
88
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, a distance between the first vertical portion (left portion) and the second vertical portion (right portion) in the first direction (A2) is equal to or longer than a length of the alignment mark (AM-110) in the first direction (A2).
Re claim 5, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, the first horizontal portion (top) and the second horizontal portion (bottom) extend from the first vertical portion (left) and the second vertical portion (right), respectively, in direction (A2) closer to the alignment mark (AM-110).
Re claim 6, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, at least one selected from the first vertical portion (left) and the second vertical portion (right) includes parts spaced apart from each other in the first direction (A2).
Re claim 8, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, a corner of the alignment mark (formed by AM-110 & IPD-110) corresponding to the first horizontal portion (top) of the panel pad (IPP-110) which does not overlap the first horizontal portion (e.g., center of top portion) of the panel pad (IPP-110).
Re claim 9, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, the panel pad (IPP-110) is not connected to a wire disposed in the display panel (110).
Re claim 11, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, the panel pad (IPP-110) further comprises a third horizontal portion (e.g., middle part of top portion or bottom portion) connected between the first vertical portion (left) and the second vertical portion (right).
Re claim 12, Lee teaches, under BRI & best understanding, Figs. 1 & 4, [0053, 0059, 0101], a display device comprising:
-a display panel (110) including a non-display area (BA, PA) in which a panel pad (IPP-110) is disposed; and
-a pad portion (PA) which contacts the non-display area (BA, PA) of the display panel (110),
wherein the pad portion (PA) includes an alignment mark (AM-110) overlapping the panel pad (IPP-110),
the panel pad (IPP-110) includes a first vertical portion (left portion) and a second vertical portion (right portion) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (A2), wherein the alignment mark (AM-110) is disposed inside an area defined by the first vertical portion (left portion) and the second vertical portion (right portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
88
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 18, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, at least one selected from the first vertical portion (left) and the second vertical portion (right) includes parts spaced apart from each other in the first direction (A2).
Re claim 19, Lee teaches, Fig. 4, the panel pad (IPP-110) further comprises a third horizontal portion (bottom portion) connected between the first vertical portion (left) and the second vertical portion (right).
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.
3. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
The teachings of Lee have been discussed above.
Re claim 10, Lee teaches the first vertical portion & the first horizontal portion (of IPP-110) (Fig. 4), does not explicitly teach an angle between the first vertical portion and the first horizontal portion is less than 90 degrees.
Lee does teach an angle between the first vertical portion (of IPD-110) and the first horizontal portion (of AM-110) is less than 90 degrees (Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Lee to obtain an angle between the first vertical portion and the first horizontal portion is less than 90 degrees as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 20, Lee teaches the first vertical portion (of IPP-110) & a horizontal side of the alignment mark (of AM-110) (Fig. 4), does not explicitly teach an angle between the first vertical portion and a horizontal side of the alignment mark is less than 90 degrees.
Lee does teach an angle between the first vertical portion (of IPD-110) and a horizontal side of the alignment mark (of AM-110) is less than 90 degrees (Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Lee to obtain an angle between the first vertical portion and a horizontal side of the alignment mark is less than 90 degrees as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3, 4, 7 & 13-17 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
The claims amended with newly added features, rejection and interpretation under Lee et al. are changed to meet the currently amended claims. The rejection of claims under An et al. is withdrawn. Details included in the above rejection.
Conclusion
6. 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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 1/26/26
Prosecution Insights