DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 10/6/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1-17) in the reply filed on 12/2/25 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
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.
The following title is suggested: Display device alignment line
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation “bridge portion”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the term “bridge portion” is not a term of art; it is not defined in the specification. In ordinary usage, the term “bridge” (as defined by Merriam Webster) has meanings such as “a structure carrying a pathway or roadway over a depression or obstacle”, “a time, place, or means of connection or transition”, or “something resembling a bridge in form or function”. In the specification, the bridge portion BRG does not span “over” an obstacle (see e.g. Figs. 13-14 wherein BRG is conformally formed on the bottom of a “bridge contact hole” BCT). The bridge portion BRG does not even necessarily connect between two objects, see in Figs. 11 and 14 wherein two bridge portions BRG each exist in isolation from each other. Because the disclosed bridge portions BRG do not look like a bridge (i.e. are not arched), and do not necessarily serve as “means of connection” between two sides of an “obstacle” (e.g. two BRGs in Fig. 14 do not span across the opening between BF to BF), the disclosed use of the term disagrees with even the ordinary usage of the term. Thus, because the claims and specification do not define the term, and the disclosed usage thereof is not entirely consistent with the ordinary usage of the term “bridge”, the scope of the claims is unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
723
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1; claims 16-17 depend from claim 15; the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies from the claim(s) from which they depend.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the fourth metal portion”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis because no previous “a fourth metal portion” was recited. It is unclear if the limitation should instead refer to “the fourth metal layer”, or some other layer or portion thereof.
Claims 4-9 depend from claim 3; the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies from the claim(s) from which they depend.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 recite the limitation “the bridge contact hole causing the bridge portion and the metal patterns to be electrically connected to each other”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear what is required of the bridge contact hole to “cause” the bridge portion and the metal patterns to be electrically connected to each other. The bridge contact hole is disclosed to merely be a portion of a device. It is not disclosed to be movable or otherwise changeable in a way that could result in electrical connection that did not otherwise exist. If the bridge portion and the metal patterns are formed on top of each other in the contact hole, in electrical connection with each other, the hole itself does not cause the electrical connection.
Claim Interpretation
The Office will use the following interpretations: the term “alignment line” will be interpreted in accordance with its use in the specification, in para 90, wherein the alignment line is capable of supplying an alignment signal to the alignment electrode during the manufacturing of the display device, particularly for formation of the light emitting elements.
The applicant is hereby notified that the examiner is treating claim 4 as a "product-by-process” claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and also see MPEP 2113).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. (See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) and also see MPEP 2113).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the metal patterns spaced apart from each other are insulated based on etching of the bridge portion”, wherein “based on etching” is a result of a process. The limitation “etching” is not limiting in any way, and does not result in any distinctive structural characteristic such as a distinct geometry, which other methods could not produce. Hence, the limitation merely results in the metal patterns, which are spaced apart from each other, being “insulated.”
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Also note the use of 102/103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. (See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972), and also see MPEP 2113).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365676 A1 (“Lim”) in view of US 2021/0159250 A1 “Chang”).
Lim teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
606
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
439
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lim teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A display device comprising:
a thin film transistor layer (e.g. comprising TR and/or the layers therein including BUF, INS1, INS2, and INS3) comprising a first metal layer (e.g. the metal used for the horizontal portions of wiring lines connected to SE and DE) disposed on a substrate SUB and a thin film transistor TF disposed on the first metal layer (the TFT connects to the as-identified first metal layer and is thus “on” it);
first and second electrodes (e.g. one SE somewhere in DA and one DE somewhere in DA) disposed in a display area DA on the thin film transistor layer and extending in parallel in a direction (SE and DE both extend vertically up for the TFT; for all TFTs in the display, this would be true, although the other TFTs and ELs in DA are not explicitly shown; for two TFTs far apart in DA, one SE and one DE would thus extend vertically up);
a plurality of light emitting elements EL disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
a line (e.g. one of DSL1) disposed in a non-display area (in A1 and/or A2 in NDA) disposed adjacent to the display area (see e.g. Fig. 5, 7, and/or 11) and electrically connected to the first and second electrodes (see e.g. para 173), wherein the alignment line comprises: metal patterns (e.g. DL1 – DL8) disposed in the first metal layer and spaced apart from each other (see e.g. Fig. 7); and a bridge portion (the exact scope of this term is unclear, see 112 rejections above) disposed on the first metal layer and electrically connected to the metal patterns (each DLS may be a multilayered construction, see e.g. para 175, wherein the upper layer(s) thereof may be the “bridge portions” and the lower layer(s) thereof may be the first metal patterns).
Lim does not disclose that the above-identified “line” is an “alignment line”. Chang teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lim, that the line is an alignment line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Chang to the invention of Lim. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using one of the DLS lines of Lim to send an alignment signal to the display to allow an electrical field to be formed that orients the light emitting elements during ink spraying thereof (see e.g. para 241).
Lim and Chang together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2. The display device of claim 1, wherein the thin film transistor layer comprises:
an active layer (see e.g. ACT, Fig. 11) on which an active region ACT, a drain electrode DE, and a source electrode SE of the thin film transistor are disposed;
a second metal layer (para 166) on which a gate electrode GE of the thin film transistor is disposed; and
a third metal layer (see e.g. LE) disposed on the second metal layer, and
the first and second electrodes are disposed in a fourth metal layer on the thin film transistor layer (SE and DE are made of metal, see e.g. para 175, and the layer is connected to other layers in the TFT layer).
3. The display device of claim 2, wherein the bridge portion and the fourth metal portion are formed of a same material on a same layer (see e.g. para 170, 175 and e.g. Fig. 11).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
4. The display device of claim 3, wherein the metal patterns spaced apart from each other are insulated based on etching of the bridge portion (they have a spacing, see e.g. Fig. 7).
7. The display device of claim 3, wherein the metal patterns are exposed from a side of the substrate (see e.g. Figs. 7, 11).
8. The display device of claim 3, further comprising: an insulating layer (e.g. INS3, PDL, TFE, etc.) disposed on the alignment line, wherein the insulating layer covers top surfaces and side surfaces of the metal patterns at an edge of the substrate (see e.g. Figs. 11, 7).
10. The display device of claim 2, wherein the bridge portion and the third metal layer are formed of a same material on a same layer (see e.g. para 170, 175 and e.g. Fig. 11).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
12. The display device of claim 2, wherein the bridge portion and the second metal layer are formed of a same material on a same layer (see e.g. para 170, 175 and e.g. Fig. 11).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
14. The display device of claim 2, further comprising:
a first contact electrode (e.g. LE) disposed in a fifth metal layer on the fourth metal layer and electrically connected between the first electrode and the plurality of light emitting elements; and
a second contact electrode (e.g. UE) disposed in the fifth metal layer and electrically connected between the second electrode and the plurality of light emitting elements.
Lim teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
15. A display device comprising:
a first metal layer (e.g. the metal used for the horizontal portions of wiring lines connected to SE and DE) disposed on a substrate SUB;
a thin film transistor TR disposed on the first metal layer (the TFT connects to the as-identified first metal layer and is thus “on” it);
an active layer (see e.g. ACT, Fig. 11) on which an active region ACT, a drain electrode DE, and a source electrode SE of the thin film transistor are disposed;
a second metal layer (para 166) on which a gate electrode GE of the thin film transistor is disposed;
a third metal layer (see e.g. LE) disposed on the second metal layer;
a fourth metal layer disposed in a display area on the third metal layer and comprising first and second electrodes (e.g. one SE somewhere in DA and one DE somewhere in DA) (SE and DE are made of metal, see e.g. para 175, and the layer is connected to other layers in the TFT layer) extending in parallel in a direction (SE and DE both extend vertically up for the TFT; for all TFTs in the display, this would be true, although the other TFTs and ELs in DA are not explicitly shown; for two TFTs far apart in DA, one SE and one DE would thus extend vertically up);
a plurality of light emitting elements EL disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
a line (e.g. one of DSL1) disposed in a non-display area (in A1 and/or A2 in NDA) disposed adjacent to the display area (see e.g. Fig. 5, 7, and/or 11) and electrically connected (see e.g. para 173) to the first and second electrodes,
wherein the alignment line comprises: a metal pattern (e.g. DL1 – DL8) disposed on the first metal layer; a first bridge portion (the exact scope of this term is unclear, see 112 rejections above) disposed in the third metal layer and electrically connected to the metal pattern (each DLS may be a multilayered construction, see e.g. para 175, wherein the upper layer(s) thereof may be the “bridge portions” and the lower layer(s) thereof may be the first metal patterns); and a second bridge portion disposed in the fourth metal layer and electrically connected to the first bridge portion (each DLS may be a multilayered construction, see e.g. para 175, wherein the upper layer(s) thereof may be the “bridge portions” and the lower layer(s) thereof may be the first metal patterns).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if rewritten to include 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: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claims 1+3+5, including:
A display device comprising:
a thin film transistor layer comprising a first metal layer disposed on a substrate and a thin film transistor disposed on the first metal layer;
first and second electrodes disposed in a display area on the thin film transistor layer and extending in parallel in a direction;
a plurality of light emitting elements disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
an alignment line disposed in a non-display area disposed adjacent to the display area and electrically connected to the first and second electrodes,
wherein the alignment line comprises:
metal patterns disposed in the first metal layer and spaced apart from each other; and
a bridge portion disposed on the first metal layer and electrically connected to the metal patterns (claim 1);
wherein the bridge portion and the fourth metal layer
wherein the bridge portion electrically connects the metal patterns spaced apart from each other (claim 5).
Note, the change from “fourth metal portion” to “fourth metal layer” would overcome the 112(b) rejection of claim 3, and no 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is required because the language from claim 5 that requires the bridge portion to electrically connect the metal patterns that are spaced apart from each other sufficiently defines the “bridge portion” in light of the specification.
The other claims each depend from one of these claims, and each would be allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896