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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's response of 04/23/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 19 is canceled. Claim 21 is added. No new matter has been added.
This office action considers claims 1-18 and 20-21 pending for prosecution and are examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 04/23/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims have
been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US 20210257579 A1 – hereinafter Okabe) in view of Yan (US 20170170210 A1 – hereinafter Yan).
Regarding independent claim 1, Okabe teaches:
(Currently Amended) A display panel (50a – Fig. – 3 – [0025] –
“organic EL display device 50a”) comprising:
a substrate (10 Fig. 3 – [0029] – “substrate layer 10”);
a signal line (18h – Fig. 6 – [0049] – “frame wire 18h is electrically connected to
a terminal receiving a low power-supply voltage (ELVSS)” – this is a signal line) on the substrate (10) and extending in a first direction (Fig. 6 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DR1’);
an organic insulating film (19a, b, c – Fig. 6 – {[0037] – “planarization film 19a
is made of such an organic resin”}, {[0051] – “planarization films 19b and 19c”}) on and overlapping a first part (Fig. 6 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘P1’) of the signal line (18h) and not overlapping a second part (Fig. 6 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘P2’) of the signal line (18h);
a pixel (Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24” – this is a pixel) electrically connected to the signal line (18h – [0051] – “second conductive layer 21b is electrically connected to the second electrode 24”) and comprising a transistor (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – [0012] – “thin-film transistor (TFT)” – hereinafter ‘TFT’) and a light emitting element (25 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24”), the light emitting (25) element comprising a pixel electrode (21a – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24”) on the organic insulating film (19a – Fig. 3 shows this); and
a conductive pattern directly covering at least a portion of an edge of the second part (P2) of the signal line when viewed in a cross-sectional view along a thickness of the display panel in a direction toward the substrate,
wherein at least a portion of the conductive pattern (21b – Fig. 3 – [0025] – “conductive layer 21b”) is at the same layer as the pixel electrode (21a – Fig. 3 – [0039] – “first electrodes 21a corresponds to one of the sub pixels P”).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okabe does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
a conductive pattern (151 – Fig. 3E – [0046] – “protective layer 151 covers the second top surface S2 and the lateral sides S3 and S4 of the third conductive layer 141”) directly covering at least a portion of an edge (S3 – Fig. 3E – [0047] – “first protective layer 151 may be transparent conductive oxide”) of the second part of the signal line (143 – Fig. 3E – [0056] – “conductive layer 143” – this is a signal line) when viewed in a cross-sectional view along a thickness of the display panel in a (Fig. 3E shows this) direction toward the substrate (11 – Fig. 3E – [0045] – “substrate 11”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern covering structure as taught by Yan into Okabe.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0009] – “to provide a display panel which has better corrosion resistance to improve its reliability.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 2, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Currently Amended) The display panel of claim 1, wherein, in a plan
view (the plan view is implied by the cross section of Fig. 6 annotated), a width of the conductive pattern (21b) in a second direction (Fig. 6 annotated, see above, hereinafter ‘DR1’) intersecting the first direction (Fig. 6 annotated, see above, hereinafter ‘DR2’) is greater than a width of the second part (P2) in the second direction (DR1).
Regarding claim 4, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Okabe does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern (151)
comprises a material ([0047] – “first protective layer 151 may be transparent conductive oxide (TCO) such as indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), cadmium tin oxide (CTO), tin oxide (SnO.sub.2), gallium zinc oxide (GZO), indium zinc tin oxide (IZTO), zinc oxide (ZnO), or other transparent conductive materials”) different from that of the signal line ([0047] – ‘first conductive layer 141 may be a monolayer or multilayer structure formed by metal (e.g. aluminium, copper, silver, molybdenum, or titanium) or alloy thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Yan into Okabe.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Okabe does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern (151)
comprises a same material as the pixel electrode ([0047] – “protective layer 151 can be formed of the same material by the same lithography process with the same photomask as the pixel electrode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Yan into Okabe.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Okabe does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein the signal line (141)
comprises a plurality of conductive layers ([0047] – “first conductive layer 141 may be a monolayer or multilayer structure”) that are sequentially stacked,
wherein the conductive pattern (151) covers each side surface (S1 – Fig. 3D – [0053] – “first protective layer 151 further covers the first top surface and the at least one lateral side S1 of the first conductive layer 141”) of the plurality of conductive layers (141 – [0047] – “first conductive layer 141 may be a monolayer or multilayer structure” -Fig. 3B shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Yan into Okabe.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel of claim 1, further comprising at
least one dam (Wa – Fig. 6 – [0051] – “dam wall Wa”) extending in a second direction (DR2) intersecting the first direction (DR1) and overlapping the second part (P2) of the signal line (18h),
wherein the at least one dam (Wa) is spaced apart from the organic insulating film (22b – {[0053] – “photo spacers 22b and 22c are formed of the same material and in the same layer as the edge cover 22a”}, {[0040] – “materials for the edge cover 22a include such positive photosensitive resins as polyimide resin, acrylic resin, polysiloxane resin, and novolak resin”} – these are organic resins, Fig. 6 annotated shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 7, wherein the at least one dam (Wa)
comprises:
a first sub-dam (19b – Fig. 6 – [0055] – “dam wall Wa includes: the planarization film 19b formed in the same layer and of the same material as the planarization film 19a; the second conductive layer 21b; and a resin layer 22d, all of which are stacked in this order”) on the second part (P2) of the signal line (18h); and
a second sub-dam (22d – Fig. 6 – [0055] – “dam wall Wa includes: the planarization film 19b formed in the same layer and of the same material as the planarization film 19a; the second conductive layer 21b; and a resin layer 22d, all of which are stacked in this order”) on the first sub-dam (19b),
wherein at least one of the first sub-dam (19b) or the second sub-dam (19c – Fig. 6 – [0056] – “second dam wall Wb includes: the planarization film 19c formed in the same layer and of the same material as the planarization film 19a; the second conductive layer 21b; and a resin layer 22e, all of which are stacked in this order”) comprises a same material as the organic insulating film (19a – Fig. 6 – {[0037] – “planarization film 19a is made of such an organic resin”}, {[0055] – “dam wall Wa includes: the planarization film 19b formed in the same layer and of the same material as the planarization film 19a”}).
Regarding claim 9, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 8 from which claim 9 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 8, wherein a portion of the
conductive pattern (21b) is between (Fig 6 shows this) the first sub-dam (Wa) and the second sub-dam (Wb).
Regarding claim 10, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 7 from which claim 10 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 7, wherein the at least one dam
(Wa) is on (Fig. 6 shows this) the conductive pattern (21b).
Regarding claim 11, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 7 from which claim 11 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel of claim 7, wherein the dam
is provided in a plurality, and the plurality of dams are spaced apart from each other in the first direction (Fig 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 11, further comprising an
encapsulation layer (30 – Fig. 6 – [0048] – “sealing film 30”) on the light emitting element (25 – Fig. 3 – [0046] – “organic EL element 25”), and including a plurality of inorganic layers ([0048] – “sealing film 30 includes: a first inorganic film 26 provided to cover the second electrode 24; an organic film 27 provided on the first inorganic film 26; and a second inorganic film 28”) and at least one organic layer (27 – Fig. 6 - [0048] – “sealing film 30 includes: a first inorganic film 26 provided to cover the second electrode 24; an organic film 27 provided on the first inorganic film 26; and a second inorganic film 28”) between the plurality of inorganic layers ([0048] – “sealing film 30 includes: a first inorganic film 26 provided to cover the second electrode 24; an organic film 27 provided on the first inorganic film 26; and a second inorganic film 28”),
wherein at least one of the plurality of dams (Wb) is spaced apart from the organic layer (27 – Fig. 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 13, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 12, wherein the plurality of
inorganic layers (28 and 36 – Fig. 6 – [0048] – “sealing film 30 includes: a first inorganic film 26 provided to cover the second electrode 24; an organic film 27 provided on the first inorganic film 26; and a second inorganic film 28”) cover the conductive pattern (18h).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Yan and Liu (US 20230403893 A1 – hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Okabe and Yan do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein one end of the conductive
pattern (101 – Fig. 3 – [0049] – “signal connecting section 101 includes a third side c” – this is a conductive pattern) comprises a plurality of protruding parts (103 and 104 – Fig. 3 – [0075] – “protruding direction of the convex parts 103”) this is a plurality) arranged along the first direction (Fig. 3 annotated, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Liu into Okabe and Yan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0004] – “provides a display panel and a display device to solve technical problems of display failure and poor display caused by metal wirings being prone to be over etched on sides and water vapor being prone to intrude the display area along the gaps formed by the sides of the metal wirings.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Yan and Liu et al. (US 20240049507 A1 – hereinafter Liu-507).
Regarding claim 14, Okabe as modified by Yan, teaches claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. Okabe further teaches
the signal line (18h – Fig. 6 – [0049] – “frame wire 18h is electrically
connected to a terminal receiving a low power-supply voltage (ELVSS)” – this is a signal line).
Okabe and Yan do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Liu-507 teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein the signal line comprises a
data line ([0071] – “signal lines comprise a data line VDATA, a scanning signal line SCAN, a first voltage line (DC power supply signal line VDD), a control signal line EM, a reset signal line RESET, an initialization signal line VI, a second voltage line (DC low voltage signal line VSS, usually grounded), etc.”) providing a data voltage to the pixel and a power line configured to provide a power supply voltage to the pixel ([0071] – “signal lines comprise a data line VDATA, a scanning signal line SCAN, a first voltage line (DC power supply signal line VDD), a control signal line EM, a reset signal line RESET, an initialization signal line VI, a second voltage line (DC low voltage signal line VSS, usually grounded), etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the signal line structure as taught by Liu-507 into Okabe and Yan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu-507 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of providing data
voltage to the display's transistor structure.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Yan and Kim (US 20190214446 A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding independent claim 15, Okabe teaches:
(Currently Amended) A display panel comprising:
a substrate (10 – Fig. 3 – [0029] – “substrate layer 10”) having a display area
(D – Fig. 3 – [0026] – “display area D”) and a non-display area (F – Fig. 3 – [0025] – “frame area F” – this is a non-display area);
a pixel (P – Fig. 2 – [0027] – “display area D includes a plurality of sub pixels P”)
on the display area (D) and comprising a pixel electrode 21a – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “first electrodes 21a” – this corresponds to a pixel electrode) and a light emitting element (25 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25”);
a signal line on the substrate, electrically connected to the pixel, and extending in
[[one]] a first direction from the display area to the non-display area;
an organic insulating film (19a, b, c – Fig. 6 – {[0037] – “planarization film 19a is made of such an organic resin”}, {[0051] – “planarization films 19b and 19c”}) on the signal line (18h) and exposing a portion of the signal line (18h – Fig. 6 shows this);
a conductive pattern on the non-display area (F) and directly covering at least a part of an edge of the portion of the signal line when viewed in a cross-sectional view along a thickness of the display panel in a direction toward the substrate; and
at least one dam (Wa – Fig. 6 – [0051] – “dam wall Wa”) overlapping the conductive pattern (21b) and crossing the signal line (18h),
wherein at least a portion of the conductive pattern (21b – Fig. 3 – [0025] – “conductive layer 21b”) is at the same layer as the pixel electrode (21a – Fig. 3 – [0039] – “first electrodes 21a corresponds to one of the sub pixels P”).
Okabe does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
a conductive pattern (151 – Fig. 3E – [0046] – “protective layer 151 covers the second top surface S2 and the lateral sides S3 and S4 of the third conductive layer 141”) on the non-display area and directly covering at least a part of an edge of (151 – Fig. 3E – [0046] – “protective layer 151 covers the second top surface S2 and the lateral sides S3 and S4 of the third conductive layer 141”) the portion of the signal line (141 – Fig. 3D – [0045] – “conductive layer 141” – this is a signal line) when viewed in a cross-sectional view along a thickness of the display panel in a (Fig. 3D shows this) direction toward the substrate (11 – Fig. 3D – [0045] – “substrate 11”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern covering structure as taught by Yan into Okabe.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0009] – “to provide a display panel which has better corrosion resistance to improve its reliability.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Okabe and Yan do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
a signal line (E-CNT – Fig. 2B – [0072] – “The conductive patterns E-VSS, E-
CNT, VIN, and CL may include a power supplying line E-VSS, a connection electrode E-CNT, an initializing voltage line VIN, and a signal line CL” – E-CNT is a signal line) on the substrate (BS – Fig. 2B – [0043] – “substrate BS”), electrically connected to the pixel (PX – Fig. 2B – [0044] – “pixels PX”), and extending in [[one]] a first
direction (DR1 – Fig. 2B – [0046] – “first direction DR1”) from the display area (DA – Fig. 2B – [0044] – “display region DA”) to the non-display area (NDA – Fig. 2B – [0044] – “peripheral region NDA” – Fig. 2B shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the signal line structure as taught by Kim into Okabe and Yan.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0004] – “a display panel, whose usage reliability and process reliability are improved, and a method of fabricating the display panel. In addition, an aspect according to an embodiment of the inventive concept is directed toward a display panel with a reduced bezel region and a method of fabricating the display panel.”
Regarding claim 16, Okabe as modified by Yan and Kim, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 15, wherein the light emitting
element comprises (25) element comprising a pixel electrode (21a – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24”) on the organic insulating film (19a – Fig. 3 shows this);
a counter electrode (24 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “second electrode 24”) on the pixel electrode (21a – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24”); and
a light emitting layer (23 – Fig. 3 – [0038] – “organic EL element 25 includes: a plurality of first electrodes 21a; an edge cover 22a; a plurality of organic EL layers 23; and a second electrode 24”) between the pixel electrode (21a) and the counter electrode (24 – Fig. 3 shows this),
wherein the conductive pattern (21b) is spaced apart from the pixel electrode (21a – fig. 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 17, Okabe as modified by Yan and Kim, teaches claim 16 from which claim 17 depends. Okabe and Kim do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern (151)
comprises a same material as the pixel electrode ([0047] – “protective layer 151 can be formed of the same material by the same lithography process with the same photomask as the pixel electrode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Yan into Okabe and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Okabe as modified by Yan and Kim, teaches claim 15 from which claim 18 depends. Okabe and Kim do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Yan teaches
(Original) The display panel of claim 15, wherein the signal line (141 – Fig.
3D – [0045] – “conductive layer 141” – this is a signal line) comprises a material ([0047] – ‘first conductive layer 141 may be a monolayer or multilayer structure formed by metal (e.g. aluminium, copper, silver, molybdenum, or titanium) or alloy thereof”) different from that of the conductive pattern ([0047] – “first protective layer 151 may be transparent conductive oxide (TCO) such as indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), cadmium tin oxide (CTO), tin oxide (SnO.sub.2), gallium zinc oxide (GZO), indium zinc tin oxide (IZTO), zinc oxide (ZnO), or other transparent conductive materials”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the signal line structure as taught by Yan into Okabe and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yan in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Yan, Kim and Liu-507.
Regarding claim 14, Okabe as modified by Yan and Kim, teaches claim 15 from which claim 20 depends. Okabe further teaches
(Currently Amended) The display panel of claim 15, wherein the
signal line (18h – Fig. 6 – [0049] – “frame wire 18h is electrically connected to a terminal receiving a low power-supply voltage (ELVSS)” – this is a signal line) comprises:
data lines extending in [[a]] the first direction (Fig. 3 annotated, see below –
hereinafter ‘DR1’), arranged along a second direction (DR2) intersecting the first direction (DR1), and configured to apply (P); and
at least one power line (18g – Fig. 3 – [0031] – “power source lines 18g”) extending in the first direction (DR1) and configured to apply (PX) (oka (25 – [0057] – “the gate voltage of the second TFT 9b, a current is defined in accordance with a gate voltage of the second TFT 9b and supplied from the power source line 18g to the organic EL layer 23” – element 25 is part of pixel P).
PNG
media_image3.png
746
1132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Okabe, Yan, and Kim do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Liu-507 teaches
data lines ([0071] – “signal lines comprise a data line VDATA, a scanning signal line SCAN, a first voltage line (DC power supply signal line VDD), a control signal line EM, a reset signal line RESET, an initialization signal line VI, a second voltage line (DC low voltage signal line VSS, usually grounded), etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the signal line structure as taught by Liu-507 into Okabe, Yan, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu-507 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of providing data
voltage to the display's transistor structure.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Okabe, Yan, Kim, Liu.
Regarding claim 21, Okabe as modified by Yan and Kim, teaches claim 15 from which claim 21 depends. Okabe, Yan, and Kim do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 21.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
(New) The display panel of claim 15, wherein one end of the conductive
pattern (101 – Fig. 4 – [0049] – “signal connecting section 101 includes a third side c” – this is a conductive pattern) comprises a plurality of protruding parts (103 and 104 – Fig. 4 – [0075] – “protruding direction of the convex parts 103”) this is a plurality) arranged along the first direction (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DR1’), and a width (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘W1’) of the conductive pattern (101) at the protruding parts (103 and 104) in a second direction (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DR2’) intersecting the first direction (DR1) is greater than a width (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘W2’) of the portion of the signal line (10 – Fig. 4 – [0057] – “signal lines 10”) in the second direction (DR1 – Fig. 4 annotated, see below, show this).
PNG
media_image4.png
643
1095
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the conductive pattern structure as taught by Liu into Okabe, Yan, and Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0004] – “provides a display panel and a display device to solve technical problems of display failure and poor display caused by metal wirings being prone to be over etched on sides and water vapor being prone to intrude the display area along the gaps formed by the sides of the metal wirings.”
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20210328110 A1 is cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including "conductive pattern".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights