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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “um” should read “[Symbol font/0x6D]m” (claim 7, line 4 and claim 14, line 10). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 14, lines 9-10, the limitation “the light-absorbing layer covers the extension portions and is at least more than 12 um” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to at least more than 12 um in which dimension (i.e., thickness, length and/or width). The specification states in paragraph [0028], lines 14-16: “For example, when the thickness of the lighting unit 18 is 6 um, the thickness H of the second insulating layer 19 preferably ranges between 12 um and 60 um.” Therefore, it is suggested Applicant make the following amendment: the light-absorbing layer covers the extension portions and is at least more than 12 um in thickness. For examination purposes, the limitation in question will be interpreted as: the light-absorbing layer covers the extension portions and is at least more than 12 um in thickness. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the lighting unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner observes that claim 16 recites “a plurality of lighting units” in lines 1-2. Therefore, it is suggested Applicant change the dependency of claim 17 from claim 14 to claim 16. For examination purposes, the limitation in question will be interpreted as: a lighting unit. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected because they depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 14 and therefore inherit the indefiniteness of claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20160083589 A (hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding claim 14, Jung discloses a display panel, comprising:
a carrier (100; Fig. 3; [0034] of the attached English machine translation), wherein a display area (AA; Fig. 3; [0034]) and a non-display area (IA; Fig. 3; [0034]) are defined on the carrier;
a plurality of wiring parts (10; Fig. 2; [0026]-[0027]) disposed on a surface of the display area, wherein each of the wiring parts has an extension portion (gate pad 30 comprising pad electrode 120; Figs. 2, 3; [0027] and [0033]), and the extension portion extends to the non-display area (Fig. 3); and
a light-absorbing layer (203; Fig. 3; [0033]) disposed on the non-display area, wherein a height of the light-absorbing layer is greater than a height of the wiring parts, and the light-absorbing layer covers the extension portions (Fig. 3).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the light-absorbing layer is at least more than 12 um (in thickness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the light-absorbing layer to be at least more than 12 um (in thickness) in order to effectively prevent the light leakage phenomenon in the non-display area (Jung: [0057]).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1980). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Jung discloses an insulating layer (101; Fig. 3; [0040] and [0054]; note: although the overcoat layer 101 is not explicitly designated as an insulating layer, it must necessarily be so; otherwise all of the wiring parts would be short-circuited to each other and the display panel thereby rendered inoperative), wherein the insulating layer is disposed on the carrier, and the wiring parts are disposed on the insulating layer.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of US 2007/0284586 A1 (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 15, Jung discloses the display panel according to claim 14.
Jung does not explicitly disclose the carrier is a transparent substrate, and each of the wiring parts is a stacked combination of a transparent conductive layer and a metal conductive layer.
Park teaches the carrier (111; Fig. 3; [0051]) is a transparent substrate, and each of the wiring parts (112, 122; Figs. 2, 3; [0041]) is a stacked combination of a transparent conductive layer (102; Fig. 3; [0041]) and a metal conductive layer (101; Fig. 3; [0041]).
Jung and Park are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jung with the specified features of Park because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a transparent substrate as the carrier, and to form each of the wiring parts from a stacked combination of a transparent conductive layer and a metal conductive layer, as taught by Park, in order to enable a flip-over type liquid crystal display that utilizes a thin film transistor substrate as a viewing surface, whereby the viewer can watch the image projected through the substrate (Jung: [0004] and [0018]), and in order to reduce a resistance of the wiring parts due to their having a greater thickness as a result of a bilayer (stacked) structure of two conductive layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 1, US 2015/0028376 A1 (hereinafter “Corwin”) appears to be the closest prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Corwin discloses a lighting module (700; Fig. 7; [0104]), comprising:
a carrier (950; Fig. 9B; [0115]);
a first transparent conductive layer (730, 740; Fig. 9B; [0116]-[0117]) extending along a first direction (a right-to-left horizontal direction in the cross-sectional view of Fig. 9B) and disposed on the carrier;
a first insulating layer (960; Fig. 9B; [0115]) disposed on the first transparent conductive layer, wherein two sides of the first insulating layer are respectively defined as a first side and a second side;
a second transparent conductive layer (130A, 140A; Fig. 9B; [0113] and [0115]) including a first conductive portion (130A) and a second conductive portion (140A), wherein the first conductive portion is connected to the first transparent conductive layer and covers one portion of the first insulating layer, the second conductive portion is disposed on another portion of the first insulating layer, and a pitch is defined between the second conductive portion and the first conductive portion;
a second metal circuit layer (520, 525; Fig. 9B; [0099] and [0115]) including a first circuit portion (520) and a second circuit portion (525), wherein a groove is formed between the second circuit portion and the first circuit portion; and
a plurality of lighting units (lighting elements 120 comprising light-emitting elements 410, respectively; Figs. 7, 9B; [0092], [0104] and [0115]) arranged corresponding to the groove, wherein a positive electrode (420; Fig. 9B; [0094] and [0116]) and a negative electrode (425; Fig. 9B; [0094] and [0116]) of each of the lighting units are connected to the first circuit portion and the second circuit portion, respectively.
Corwin does not disclose a first metal circuit layer extending along a first direction and disposed on the carrier, the first transparent conductive layer covering the first metal circuit layer, the first circuit portion covers the first conductive portion, the second circuit portion covers the second conductive portion, and a bonding structure layer including a first bonding portion and a second bonding portion, wherein the first bonding portion is disposed between a surface of the first insulating layer and the first circuit portion, and the second bonding portion is disposed between the surface of the first insulating layer and the second circuit portion.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-13 are allowed because the prior art does not teach or suggest “a first metal circuit layer extending along a first direction and disposed on the carrier; a first transparent conductive layer extending along the first direction and covering the first metal circuit layer;” “the first circuit portion covers the first conductive portion, the second circuit portion covers the second conductive portion” and “a bonding structure layer including a first bonding portion and a second bonding portion, wherein the first bonding portion is disposed between a surface of the first insulating layer and the first circuit portion, and the second bonding portion is disposed between the surface of the first insulating layer and the second circuit portion” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 requires all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 16-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and 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: Jung in view of Park do not teach or suggest “a plurality of lighting units are disposed on the display area, and two sides of a bottom portion of each of the lighting units are respectively connected to the wiring parts” as recited in claim 16, and “a connection line between a surface center of the lighting unit and an edge of a top end of the light-absorbing layer is defined as a projection direction, an angle is formed between the projection direction and a surface of the lighting unit, and a range of the angle is between 12° and 62.4°” as recited in claim 17. Claims 18 and 20 depend from claim 16 and therefore would be allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811