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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the claim amendments, filed 2/9/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
It is argued that Yue fails to teach “the first conductive circuit 114 comprises a plurality of conductive patterns, one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate and not connected to each other”, that the active component layer/first conductive circuit 114 is a continuous structure.
Note that on page 5 of the translation, Yue states:”
PNG
media_image1.png
334
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In particular, the above excerpt states “a plurality of signal traces”, “a plurality of pads”, “a plurality of signal wires”, and “signal lines” which combine to meet this claim limitation. There are a plurality of conductive patterns (signal traces, signal lines and signal wires) not connected to each other (because there are a plurality of them), and Yue’s figure 4 teaches one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns 14 are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate 111. Since there are plural signal traces, signal wires and signal lines they are not a continuous structure.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 15-20 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.
The new claim amendment states “…and not connected to each other” and paragraph 0019 is cited as support for this limitation. But this paragraph does not say they are “not connected to each other”. No where does this paragraph talk about the plurality of conductive patterns not being connected, nor does it say they are or are not a continuous structure.
To address this, note that Yue, the 1st full paragraph on page 5, states that there are multiple signal traces, pads, signal wires, and signal lines. Therefore there are a plurality of conductive patterns not connected to each other, and Yue’s figure 4 teaches one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate.
It is noted that paragraph 0019 does state the “other portion of the first conductive circuit is directly disposed on the first flexible substrate 101 without being in direct contact with the first support substate 100.
If this is the intended meaning of the new claim limitation, Yue teaches this, the first flexible substrate 113 is fully between the first support substate 100 and the first conductive circuit 114 on the back surface.
It is also argued that Kwak fails to teach this limitation. Since Yue teaches this limitation, it is not of particular relevance whether Kwak teaches it or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al., CN 112652278A, in view of Kwak et al., US 11,048,306.
Regarding claim 1, Yue (figure 4) teaches a display device, comprising:
a first display module 110, comprising:
a first support substrate 111;
a first flexible substrate 113, disposed on the first support substrate 111;
a first conductive circuit 114, disposed on the first support substrate 111;
a plurality of first electronic elements 115, disposed on the first conductive circuit 114, wherein the first conductive circuit 114 is located between the plurality of first electronic elements 115 and the first support substrate 111 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 115; and
a protection layer 117, covering the plurality of first electronic elements115 and the first conductive circuit 114;
a plurality of the first display modules 130/160 spliced to each other; and
a plurality of driving elements 132/162, respectively disposed on a plurality of the first conductive circuits 134 exposed by a plurality of the protection layers 117,
wherein the first flexible substrate 113 and the first conductive circuit 114 are bent from a side surface of the first support substrate 111 to a back surface of the first support substrate 111,
wherein the protection layer 117 exposes the first conductive circuit 132 bent onto the back surface,
wherein the first conductive circuit 114 comprises a plurality of conductive patterns, one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate and not connected to each other.
To clarify the last limitation, on page 5 of the translation, Yue states:”
PNG
media_image1.png
334
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In particular, note “ plurality of signal traces”, “a plurality of pads”, “a plurality of signal wires”, and “signal lines” which combine to meet this claim limitation. There are a plurality of conductive patterns (traces, lines and wires) therefore they are not connected to each other (it isn’t continuous), and Yue’s figure 4 teaches one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns 114 are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate 111. Further, the first flexible substrate 113 is fully between the first support substate 100 and the first conductive circuit 114 on the back surface.
Also, Yue fails to teach the plurality of first conductive circuits and the plurality of driving elements completely overlap with each other on the back surface of the first support substrate, and in each of the plurality of first display modules.
Kwak (figure 2) teaches the plurality of first conductive circuits 151 and the plurality of driving elements 180 completely overlap with each other on the back surface of the first support substrate 152, and in each of the plurality of first display modules (as applied to 130/160 of Yue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the completely overlapping conductive circuits and driving elements of Kwak in the invention of Yue because Kwak teaches it a is a known equivalent configuration that allows for additional elements, such as the sensors 210/220 to be attached. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 2, Yue (figure 4) teaches at least one of the plurality of conductive patterns 114 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 113 and continuously extends below one of the plurality of first electronic elements 115 from a top surface of the first flexible substrate 113 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 115.
As to claim 3, wherein the first conductive circuit 114 located between the plurality of first electronic elements 115 and the first support substrate 111 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 113.
In re claim 8, Yue (figure 4) teaches a plurality of the first display modules 110/130/160 spliced to each other, wherein in each of the plurality of first display modules 110/130/160, the protection layer 117 exposes the first conductive circuit 114 bent onto the back surface, and the display device 110 further comprises: a plurality of driving elements 132/162, respectively disposed on a plurality of the first conductive circuits 114 exposed by a plurality of the protection layers 117 (paragraph 0117:the protective layer 117 may be a single-layer or multi-layer structure).
Regarding claim 15, Yue (figure 4) teaches a display device, comprising:
a first display module 110, comprising:
a first support substrate 111;
a first flexible substrate 113, disposed on the first support substrate 111;
a first conductive circuit 114, disposed on the first support substrate 111;
a plurality of first electronic elements 115, disposed on the first conductive circuit 114, wherein the first conductive circuit 114 is located between the plurality of first electronic elements 115 and the first support substrate 111 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 115;
a protection layer 117 , covering the plurality of first electronic elements 115 and the first conductive circuit 114;
a plurality of the first display modules 130/160 spliced to each other; and
a plurality of driving elements 132/162, respectively disposed on a plurality of the first conductive circuits 114 exposed by a plurality of the protection layers 117,
wherein the first flexible substrate 113 and the first conductive circuit 114 are bent from a side surface of the first support substrate 111 to a back surface of the first support substrate 111;
the protection layer 117 exposes the first conductive circuit 114 bent onto the back surface,
wherein the first conductive circuit 114 comprises a plurality of conductive patterns, one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate and not connected to each other.
To clarify the last limitation, on page 5 of the translation, Yue states:”
PNG
media_image1.png
334
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In particular, note “ plurality of signal traces”, “a plurality of pads”, “a plurality of signal wires”, and “signal lines” which combine to meet this claim limitation. There are a plurality of conductive patterns (traces, lines and wires) therefore they are not connected to each other (it isn’t continuous), and Yue’s figure 4 teaches one portion of the plurality of conductive patterns 114 are disposed on the back surface of the first support substrate 111.
Yue fails to teach a projection area of the first conductive circuit on the back surface of the first support substrate is larger than a projection area of the driving elements on the back surface of the first support substrate, and in each of the plurality of first display modules. Further, the first flexible substrate 113 is fully between the first support substate 100 and the first conductive circuit 114 on the back surface.
Kwak (figure 2) teaches a projection area of the first conductive circuit 151 on the back surface of the first support substrate 152 is larger than a projection area of the driving elements 180 on the back surface of the first support substrate 152, and in each of the plurality of first display modules(as applied to each of 130 & 160 of Yue).
the plurality of first conductive circuits 151 and the plurality of driving elements 180 completely overlap with each other on the back surface of the first support substrate 152, and in each of the plurality of first display modules (as applied to 130/160 of Yue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the larger projection of the first conductive circuit of Kwak in the invention of Yue because Kwak teaches it a is a known equivalent configuration that allows for additional elements, such as the sensors 210/220 to be attached. The substitution of one known equivalent technique for another may be obvious even if the prior art does not expressly suggest the substitution (Ex parte Novak 16 USPQ 2d 2041 (BPAI 1989); In re Mostovych 144 USPQ 38 (CCPA 1964); In re Leshin 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
With respect to claim 16, Yue (figure 4) teaches at least one of the plurality of conductive patterns 114 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 113 and continuously extends below one of the plurality of first electronic elements 115 from a top surface of the first flexible substrate 113 and electrically connected to the plurality of first electronic elements 115.
As to claim 17, Yue (figure 4) teaches the first conductive circuit 114 located between the plurality of first electronic elements 115 and the first support substrate 111 is disposed on the first flexible substrate 113.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al., CN 112652278A, in view of Kwak et al., US 11,048,30, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Shin et al., US 2021/0183837.
Concerning claims 6 and 18, Yue fails to teach the protection layer has a first portion covering the side surface of the first support substrate and a second portion covering a front surface of the first support substrate.
Shin (figure 6) teaches the protection layer 100 has a first portion covering the side surface 45/49 of the first support substrate 30 and a second portion covering a front surface 41 of the first support substrate 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the protection layer of Shin in the invention of Yue because Shin (paragraph 0134-0135) teaches it protects the diodes and the substrate from external forces.
Pertaining to claims 7 and 19, Shin (figure 5) teaches a thickness of the first portion (covering 45/49) is less than or equal to a thickness of the second portion (covering 41).
In claims 9 and 20, though Yue and Shinn fails to teach another protection layer, covering the plurality of driving elements, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use another protection layer in the invention of Yue because the use of another protection layer is conventionally known and used in the art to protect the driving element from damage and external forces. The use of conventional materials to perform their known functions is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A ZARNEKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1937. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F.
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, Matt Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/DAVID A ZARNEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 3/4/26