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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claim 1, Applicant argues where in “The present invention involves the inclusion of SiN and simultaneously exhibits residual stress within a specific range. SAKUMA discloses a range of residual stress from 50 to 250 MPa, but this is in the context of including SiO. Furthermore, SAKUMA clearly states that when SiN is included, the residual stress ranges from 700 to 1400 MPa.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s characterization of Sakuma.
Sakuma (US 2012/0240674) explicitly discloses a silicon nitride insulating film whose residual stress is within the claimed range. Paragraph 40 states:
• “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film…” and
• “the insulating films 14, 19, and 21 are films that have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa.”
Thus, Sakuma expressly describes a silicon nitride film (film 21) having residual stress within 50–250 MPa.
Applicant’s argument that Sakuma teaches residual stress within this range only for silicon oxide films is not supported by the disclosure of Sakuma. Paragraph 40 places films 15 and 20, both silicon oxide films, in the tensile stress range of 700–1200 MPa, and separately identifies films 14, 19, and 21, film 21 being silicon nitride, as having 50–250 MPa compressive stress.
Accordingly, Sakuma teaches the combination of silicon nitride and residual stress in the range relied upon in the rejection, and applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As per claim 1, Applicant further argues that “In addition, the Applicants believe that there is no motivation to combine references because Harada is not from an analogous field of art and because the Examiner has provided no rationale for why one of ordinary skill in the art would select an insulating film from a reference directed to semiconductor devices and combine it with references directed to display devices. For the purposes of evaluating obviousness of claimed subject matter, the particular references relied upon must constitute "analogous art". In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The art must be from the same field of endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id. Harada is directed to semiconductor devices. Harada teaches that the insulating film is provided on a portion of the top surface of said metal substrate leaving a portion of the metal substrate exposed. (See Claim 1) Harada further teaches that a semiconductor element is mounted on the insulating film along with at least one of signal film wirings and power film wirings, and passive elements selected from the group consisting of a film resistor and a film capacitor. (See Claim 1) The field of endeavor is determined "by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004); see also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed.Cir.1986). The claimed display device (the present invention's subject matter) concerns itself with a sensing unit that is disposed on the display panel. When a user touches an input sensing unit such as a touch panel, an input signal is generated. The input signal generated from the touch panel is provided to the display panel, and in response to the input signal provided from the touch panel, the display panel may provide the user with the image corresponding to the input signal. (See paragraph [0004] of the instant specification) Harada does not even use the term "display" even once in the entire application. It does not discuss sensing or touch panels or how input signals are generated. It is totally devoid of anything to do with display panels and sensing. It is therefore not from the same field of endeavor. A reference is "reasonably pertinent" only if its subject matter "logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). And "if the problems addressed are substantially different, then the references are not analogous." Airbus, 941 F.3d at 1382. Harada is not concerned with display devices as the claims of the instant invention are directed to. One of ordinary skill in the art noting that the insulating film of Harada has various devices mounted on it such as a semiconductor along with associated wiring and resistive and capacitive elements would not have selected its insulating film to use in a display device that concerns itself with input sensing as detailed below. Harada would not have commended itself to an inventor interested in solving problems with input sensing units for display panels. It is not reasonably pertinent or relevant to the subject matter at hand. There is no motivation to combine Harada with either of Choi, Wang or Sakuma since Harada is not from an analogous field of art.”.
The Office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion that Harada is non-analogous art.
A reference is analogous if it (1) is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or (2) is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Harada is directed to the formation and properties of insulating films for electronic components (e.g., col. 1, lines 8–10; col. 3, lines 17–25), including silicon oxynitride films having specified nitrogen content and improved resistance to cracking, moisture absorption, and peeling (col. 5, lines 31–34). The present claims similarly concern insulating films having defined composition and mechanical properties.
Thus, even if Harada were not considered to be in the same field of endeavor, Harada is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention, namely, selecting and optimizing insulating film materials to obtain desirable stress, durability, and reliability properties.
Applicant’s argument that Harada does not disclose a “display” or “touch panel” is not determinative. The analogous-art inquiry focuses on the technological problem addressed, not the end-use device. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Harada’s teachings regarding composition and stress behavior of insulating films when seeking to improve insulating films used in display-related devices.
Accordingly, the argument that Harada is non-analogous art is not persuasive.
As per claim 1, Applicant further argues wherein “Harada, cited by the examiner, discloses that the N/Si atomic ratio of the silicon nitride insulating layer is 0.3 to 0.8, but also discloses that the intrinsic stress of the insulating layer is "8X109 dyne/cm2 or less." However, the above intrinsic stress is not a "residual stress" but a "value obtained by subtracting the thermal stress from total residual stress", and thus does not correspond to the residual stress of the present invention. Rather, it is thought that the total residual stress measured through the degree of film warpage in Harada should be viewed as a factor corresponding to the residual stress of the present invention. Therefore, it is thought that it is somewhat of a leap to derive the stress value of the present invention, which is -250 MPa or more and -100 MPa or less, through the intrinsic stress value of the insulating layer disclosed in Harada. In addition, in a previous office action, the examiner denied the patentability of the content of dependent claim 8 (residual stress value) through the content disclosed in SAKUMA. However, the residual stress values disclosed by SAKUMA are for an insulating layer containing "silicon oxide" and not for an insulating layer containing "silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride". Rather, the insulating layer containing SAKUMA's "silicon nitride" discloses values of over 700 MPa, in contrast to the present invention.”
Applicant argues that Harada discloses “intrinsic stress” rather than “residual stress,” and therefore cannot teach or suggest the claimed residual stress values. The Office respectfully disagrees.
Harada teaches silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride insulating films having controlled film stress, and expressly explains the relationship between intrinsic stress, tensile stress, and compressive stress (See Harada, col. 5, lines 23-51). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Harada teaches methods of achieving desired stress characteristics in nitride-based insulating films, including stress magnitudes, measurement techniques, and conditions influencing stress, and would have recognized the relevance of this teaching to the problem of achieving stable, crack-resistant and moisture-resistant insulating films.
Differences in terminology used to express film stress (e.g., intrinsic vs. total residual) do not constitute a patentable distinction. What is material for purposes of obviousness is that Harada teaches stress-controlled silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride films, the factors affecting such stress, and the benefits of adjusting film composition (including N/Si ratio) to obtain desired stress characteristics. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such teachings directly relevant to any layered electronic structure employing nitride-based insulating films.
Applicant further argues that Sakuma allegedly teaches residual stress ranges of “700–1400 MPa” for silicon nitride films. As stated above, this is inconsistent with Sakuma’s express disclosure. Paragraph 40 of Sakuma states that “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film” and that “the insulating films 14, 19, and 21 are films that have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa.” Thus, the residual stress range for the silicon nitride film (insulating film 21) in Sakuma corresponds to the claimed range. The higher tensile-stress values cited by Applicant refer to different oxide layers (films 15 and 20), not to the nitride layer.
Accordingly, Applicant’s characterization of the prior art is not supported by the cited disclosure.
As per claim 1, Applicant further argues “It is believed that the patentability of the independent claims has been secured by correcting the content of dependent claims 2 and 8, "the first sensing insulating layer includes silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride, and the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of -250 MPa or more and -100 MPa or less." There is no motivation to combine Choi with Jiang? and Harada and this combination cannot render the claimed invention obvious.”
Applicant argues that the patentability of the independent claims has been secured by amendments to dependent claims 2 and 8, and that there is no motivation to combine Choi with Jiang? and Harada. The Office respectfully disagrees.
The combination of references is supported by teachings in the prior art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Specifically:
Modification of the first sensing insulating layer to include nitrogen / silicon oxynitride
Wang teaches that the first sensing insulating layer may comprise nitrogen and that it may include silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride (see paragraphs 24 and 31). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Choi to incorporate nitrogen, thereby forming a silicon oxynitride or silicon nitride layer as suggested by Wang, for the purpose of utilizing well-known insulating materials and standard fabrication methods.
Adjustment of the N/Si atomic ratio
Harada teaches that the N/Si atomic ratio of silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride films should be approximately 0.3 to 0.8 (col. 3, lines 18–21), and more preferably about 0.69 to 0.85, to obtain insulating films with high resistance to cracking, moisture, and peeling. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Choi and Wang to achieve such an atomic ratio, in order to enhance the insulating properties of the first sensing insulating layer while preventing mechanical and environmental degradation.
Residual stress of the first sensing insulating layer
Sakuma discloses that silicon nitride films, including insulating film 21, have a compressive residual stress of 50-250 MPa (Fig. 6, paragraph 040), which corresponds to -250 to -50 MPa in the claimed stress convention. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to adjust the first sensing insulating layer to achieve a residual stress of -250 MPa or more and -100 MPa or less, as taught by Sakuma, for the purpose of preventing brittle fracture and ensuring structural stability.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Wang (nitrogen incorporation), Harada (N/Si ratio adjustment for mechanical and moisture stability), and Sakuma (residual stress control) are complementary. The modification of Choi’s device using these teachings falls within the routine skill of the art, as each reference addresses well-known parameters affecting insulating film composition and performance in layered electronic devices. Lee et al. further corroborates the general principles of layer selection and processing. Accordingly, there is ample motivation to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s assertion that there is no motivation to combine Choi, Jiang?, and Harada is not persuasive. The combination of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma, and Lee et al. teaches or suggests all elements of the independent claims, and such modifications would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is therefore maintained.
As per claim 1, Applicant further argues wherein “There is no indication or suggestion in the references cited by the examiner regarding the problem-solving means of the present invention. Despite the superior effects of the present invention, it is considered somewhat a leap to conclude that the present invention can be derived by combining all five references (four cited in the current office action plus Lee as an additional reference). The Applicants therefore believe that the combination of Choi with Wang, Harada and Sakuma does not teach all elements of the claimed invention.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of US 5,455,453 to Harada et al.; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.
As per claim 1, Choi et al. teach a display device comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 2, DP) including a display region (Fig. 2, AA) and a non-display region (Fig. 2, NAA); and
an input sensing unit (Figs. 3 and 16C, ISP) disposed on the display panel,
wherein the input sensing unit includes a first sensing insulating layer (Fig. 16C, IL1) disposed on the display panel, and a first sensing conductive layer (Fig. 16C, paragraph 163, “The input-sensing unit ISP may include a first insulating layer ILL a first conductive layer disposed thereon, a second insulating layer IL2 covering the first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer IL2”) disposed on the first sensing insulating layer.
Choi et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride.
Wang teaches wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (paragraphs 24 and 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride, such as taught by Wang, for the purpose of utilizing well-known manufacturing materials and methods.
Choi and Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85.
Harada et al. suggest wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi and Wang et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85, such as suggested by Harada, for the purpose of obtaining an insulating film having good insulating properties as well as high resistance to cracks, moisture and peeling.
Choi, Wang and Harada et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa.
Sakuma suggests wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang and Harada et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa, such as taught by Sakuma, for the purpose of preventing brittle fractures.
Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the input sensing unit comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature, the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region.
Lee et al teach wherein the input sensing unit (Fig. 7A, TS) comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature (Fig. 11, BA2 and BA3 extend from NBA1), the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region (paragraph 217, “The input-sensing unit, the anti-reflection unit, and the window unit of FIGS. 2A to 2B may be overlapped with the first non-bending region NBA1 and the second and third bending regions BA2 and BA3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al., so that the input sensing unit comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature, the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region, such as taught by Lee et al., for the purpose of enhancing immersion and minimizing screen edge image distortion.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach wherein the bending insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (Wang, paragraphs 24 and 31, notice that the insulating layer of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. is included in both a flat region and a bending region. Notice that the current claim language does not seem to preclude the insulating section included in the flat region from having the same properties as the insulating layer included in the bending region), has an atomic ration of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (Harada, column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”), and has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Sakuma, Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
As per claim 5, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises a display element layer (Fig. 11, EML) including a plurality of light-emitting elements (paragraph 41, Fig 6, OLED pixels 6) and an encapsulation layer (Fig. 11, TFEL) configured to encapsulate the display element layer, and the input sensing unit is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer (Fig. 11).
As per claim 9, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a refractive index of about 1.75 to about 1.95 (paragraph 174).
As per claim 10, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the input sensing unit further comprises: a second sensing insulating layer disposed on the first sensing insulating layer and configured to cover the first sensing conductive layer; and a second sensing conductive layer disposed on the second sensing insulating layer (Choi, Fig. 16C, paragraph 163, “The input-sensing unit ISP may include a first insulating layer ILL a first conductive layer disposed thereon, a second insulating layer IL2 covering the first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer IL2”).
As per claim 11, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 10, wherein the second sensing insulating layer comprises at least one of aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, zirconium oxide, or hafnium oxide (Wang, paragraphs 24 and 31).
As per claim 12, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 10, further comprising a third sensing insulating layer (Choi, Fig. 16C, IL3/PL) disposed on the second sensing insulating layer and configured to cover the second sensing conductive layer.
As per claim 13, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 12, wherein the third sensing insulating layer comprises an organic material (Choi, paragraph 174, “The protection layer PL may be formed of or include an organic material”).
As per claim 14, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 10, wherein an electrode contact hole, which exposes at least a portion of the first sensing conductive layer and overlaps the display region, is defined in the second sensing insulating layer, and the second sensing conductive layer is electrically connected to the first sensing conductive layer through the electrode contact hole (Choi, paragraph 33).
As per claim 15, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 10, wherein the input sensing unit comprises: a plurality of sensing patterns (Choi, Fig. 3) overlapping the display region and arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns; a plurality of sensing pads overlapping the non-display region (Choi, Fig. 3, I-PD); and a plurality of sensing wires connected to the plurality of sensing pads in a one-to-one manner such that the plurality of sensing wires electrically connects the plurality of sensing patterns and the plurality of sensing pads (Choi, Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of sensing patterns is included in at least one of the first sensing conductive layer or the second sensing conductive layer (Choi, Fig. 3, paragraph 194).
As per claim 17, Choi et al. teach a display device comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 2, DP) including a display region (Fig. 2, AA); and
an input sensing unit (Figs. 3 and 16C, ISP) disposed on the display panel,
wherein the input sensing unit includes a plurality of sensing insulating layers (Fig. 16C, IL1/IL2) and at least one sensing conductive layer disposed on any one of the plurality of sensing insulating layers (Fig. 16C, paragraph 163, “The input-sensing unit ISP may include a first insulating layer ILL a first conductive layer disposed thereon, a second insulating layer IL2 covering the first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer IL2”).
Choi et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride.
Wang teaches wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (paragraphs 24 and 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride, such as taught by Wang, for the purpose of utilizing well-known manufacturing materials and methods.
Choi and Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85.
Harada et al. suggest wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi and Wang et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85, such as suggested by Harada, for the purpose of obtaining an insulating film having good insulating properties as well as high resistance to cracks, moisture and peeling.
Choi, Wang and Harada et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa.
Sakuma suggests wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang and Harada et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa, such as taught by Sakuma, for the purpose of preventing brittle fractures.
Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the input sensing unit comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature, wherein at least one of the plurality of sensing layers includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region.
Lee et al teach wherein the input sensing unit comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature (Fig. 11, BA2 and BA3 extend from NBA1), wherein at least one of the plurality of sensing layers includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region (paragraph 217, “The input-sensing unit, the anti-reflection unit, and the window unit of FIGS. 2A to 2B may be overlapped with the first non-bending region NBA1 and the second and third bending regions BA2 and BA3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al., so that the input sensing unit comprises a non-bending region and a bending region extending from the non-bending region and having a predetermined radius of curvature, wherein at least one of the plurality of sensing layers includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the bending region, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region, such as taught by Lee et al., for the purpose of enhancing immersion and minimizing screen edge image distortion.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach wherein the bending insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (Wang, paragraphs 24 and 31, notice that the insulating layer of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. is included in both a flat region and a bending region. Notice that the current claim language does not seem to preclude the insulating section included in the flat region from having the same properties as the insulating layer included in the bending region), has an atomic ration of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (Harada, column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”), and has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Sakuma, Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
As per claim 18, Choi et al. teach a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
forming a first sensing insulating layer (Fig. 16C, IL1/IL2) on a display panel; forming a first sensing conductive layer on the first sensing insulating layer; forming a second sensing insulating layer (Fig. 16C, IL1/IL2) disposed on the first sensing insulating layer and configured to cover the first sensing conductive layer; and forming a second sensing conductive layer disposed on the second sensing insulating layer (Fig. 16C, paragraph 163, “The input-sensing unit ISP may include a first insulating layer ILL a first conductive layer disposed thereon, a second insulating layer IL2 covering the first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer IL2”)
Choi et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride.
Wang teaches wherein the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (paragraphs 24 and 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer comprises nitrogen, where the first sensing insulating layer comprises silicon oxynitride, such as taught by Wang, for the purpose of utilizing well-known manufacturing materials and methods.
Choi and Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85.
Harada et al. suggest wherein the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi and Wang et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has an atomic ratio of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85, such as suggested by Harada, for the purpose of obtaining an insulating film having good insulating properties as well as high resistance to cracks, moisture and peeling.
Choi, Wang and Harada et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa.
Sakuma suggests wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang and Harada et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa, such as taught by Sakuma, for the purpose of preventing brittle fractures.
Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in a bending region having a predetermined radius of curvature, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in a non-bending region.
Lee et al teach the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in a bending region having a predetermined radius of curvature (Fig. 11, BA2 and BA3 extend from NBA1), and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in the non-bending region (paragraph 217, “The input-sensing unit, the anti-reflection unit, and the window unit of FIGS. 2A to 2B may be overlapped with the first non-bending region NBA1 and the second and third bending regions BA2 and BA3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada and Sakuma et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer includes a bending sensing insulating layer disposed in a bending region having a predetermined radius of curvature, and a non-bending sensing insulating layer disposed in a non-bending region, such as taught by Lee et al., for the purpose of enhancing immersion and minimizing screen edge image distortion.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach wherein the bending insulating layer comprises silicon nitride (Wang, paragraphs 24 and 31, notice that the insulating layer of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. is included in both a flat region and a bending region. Notice that the current claim language does not seem to preclude the insulating section included in the flat region from having the same properties as the insulating layer included in the bending region), has an atomic ration of nitrogen (N) to silicon (Si) of about 0.69 to about 0.85 (Harada, column 3, lines 18-21, “nitrogen preferably in the atomic ratio to Si of 0.3 to 0.8”), and has a residual stress of about -250 megapascals (MPa) to about -100 MPa (Sakuma, Fig. 6, paragraph 40, “the insulating film 21 is a silicon nitride film … the insulating films … 21 … have a compressive stress whose residual stress is 50 MPa to 250 MPa”, insulation layer 21 has compressive residual stresses of 50 to 250 MPa, in other words, residual stresses of -250 to -50 MPa).
As per claim 19, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 18, wherein the forming of the first sensing insulating layer is performed by a deposition process (Choi, paragraph 153).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of US 5,455,453 to Harada et al; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.; further in view of US 2021/0019007 to Park et al.
As per claim 4, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. do not teach a bending protective layer disposed on the input sensing unit, wherein the bending protective layer overlaps the bending region and covers a portion of the input sensing unit.
Park et al teach a bending protective layer (Fig. 3, BPL 50) disposed on the input sensing unit, wherein the bending protective layer overlaps the bending region and covers a portion of the input sensing unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al., by including a bending protective layer disposed on the input sensing unit, wherein the bending protective layer overlaps the bending region and covers a portion of the input sensing unit, such as taught by Park et al., for the purpose of protecting bent components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of 5,455,453 to Harada et al; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.; further in view of US 2021/0004135 to Kim et al.
As per claim 6, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 5, wherein the input sensing unit is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the encapsulation layer comprises a first inorganic layer disposed on the display element layer, an organic layer disposed on the first inorganic layer, and a second inorganic layer disposed on the organic layer, and the input sensing unit is disposed directly on the second inorganic layer.
Kim et al. teach wherein the encapsulation layer (Fig. 4, TFE) comprises a first inorganic layer (Fig. 4, IOL1) disposed on the display element layer (Fig. 4, DSL/CPL), an organic layer disposed on the first inorganic layer (Fig. 4, OL), and a second inorganic layer (Fig. 4, IOL2) disposed on the organic layer, and the input sensing unit is disposed directly on the second inorganic layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al., so that the encapsulation layer comprises a first inorganic layer disposed on the display element layer, an organic layer disposed on the first inorganic layer, and a second inorganic layer disposed on the organic layer, and the input sensing unit is disposed directly on the second inorganic layer, such as taught by Kim et al., for the purpose of encapsulating the display layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of US 5,455,453 to Harada et al; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.; further in view of US 2021/0066659 to Ohara et al.
As per claim 7, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. do not teach wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a film density of about 2 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) to about 2.2 g/cm3.
Ohara et al. suggest wherein the first sensing insulating layer has a film density of about 2 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) to about 2.2 g/cm3 (paragraph 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al., so that the first sensing insulating layer has a film density of about 2 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) to about 2.2 g/cm3, such as suggested by Ohara et al., for the purpose of protecting against external moisture.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of 5,455,453 to Harada et al; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.; further in view US 2020/0089355 to Moon et al.
As per claim 16, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the display device of claim 15.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. do not explicitly teach a pad contact hole exposing at least a portion of the plurality of sensing pads is defined in the second sensing insulating layer, and the sensing wires are electrically connected to the plurality of sensing pads through the pad contact hole.
Moon et al. teach a pad contact hole exposing at least a portion of the plurality of sensing pads is defined in the second sensing insulating layer (Fig. 3, “contact holes CNT, which partially expose the touch driving wires (TX1_1 through TX5_1 and TX1_2 through TX5_2) and the touch sensing wires”, notice that the wires connect the pads with the electrodes, so that the holes CNT expose, at least indirectly, the pads via their respectively exposed wires), and the sensing wires are electrically connected to the plurality of sensing pads through the pad contact hole (paragraphs 114 and 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al., so that a pad contact hole exposing at least a portion of the plurality of sensing pads is defined in the second sensing insulating layer, and the sensing wires are electrically connected to the plurality of sensing pads through the pad contact hole, such as taught by Moon et al., for the purpose of connecting sensing electrodes to their respective pads.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126227 to Choi et al.; in view of US 2024/0168579 to Wang; further in view of US 5,455,453 to Harada et al; in view of US 2012/0240674 to Sakuma; further in view of US 2019/0371865 to Lee et al.; further in view of US 2018/0095581 to Hwang et al.
As per claim 20, Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 18.
Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al. do not teach wherein the forming of the first sensing insulating layer is performed at a temperature of about 70 °C to about 100 °C.
Hwang et al. suggest wherein the forming of the first sensing insulating layer is performed at a temperature of about 70 °C to about 100 °C (paragraphs 95 and 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Choi, Wang, Harada, Sakuma and Lee et al., so that the forming of the first sensing insulating layer is performed at a temperature of about 70 °C to about 100 °C, such as taught by Hwang et al., for the purpose of preventing damage to the pixels during manufacturing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights