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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 02/05/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments. The following new rejection to claims 1-2 and 13-18 is under 103(a). With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 (a) the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as discussed below. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are under consideration. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2022/0199655 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Pub # 2023/0317856 to Koezuka et al. (Koezuka).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park discloses a display device (Fig. 4), comprising:
a plurality of sub pixels (Fig. 4: RWGB) disposed on a substrate (¶0056) including an emission area and a non- emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4);
a gate line (GL: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) disposed in the non-emission area, the gate line (GL) extending in a first direction;
at least one signal line (PLA1: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4; it is noted that ¶0053 discloses that signal lines may include a gate line GL, a data line DL, a sensing control line SCL, a voltage supply line PLA, a voltage line PLB and a sensing line SL) disposed in the non-emission area, the at least one signal line (PLA1) overlapping (see Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) with the gate line (GL);
at least one branch line (105 or 106: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) connected to the at least one signal line (PLA1); and
a repair part (Y or 107: Examiner’s Mark-up below and ¶0119 and Fig. 4; also see Fig. 7 which is an enlarged exemplary view illustrating an area Y shown in FIG. 4) overlapping (¶0159) with the at least one branch line (105), the repair part (107) being spaced apart from the at least one branch line (¶0192).
Park fails to disclose wherein a portion of the at least one branch line includes a laminated structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer.
Koezuka discloses a laminate structure including a semiconductor layer (Fig. 7D: 108n which is an extension of 108) and a transparent oxide layer (Fig. 7D: 120a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the laminate structure of Koezuka into the device of Park to enhance optical transparency and improve the interface characteristics between the conductive line and the semiconductor region. Transparent oxide films were well known in the art for providing both optical transmittance and excellent barrier properties at semiconductor interfaces. Substituting or adding such a transparent oxide layer to form a laminated structure in Park’s device would have been a predictable design choice yielding improved optical and electrical performance without changing the basic operation of Park’s circuit, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Park to include a laminate structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer, as taught by Koezuka, to obtain the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein the repair part (Fig. 4: Y and Fig. 7: 107) is configured to reflect laser light onto a portion of the least one branch line (105) overlapping with the repair part (Fig. 4: Y and Fig. 7: 107) and cut the least one branch line (105) to deactivate one of the plurality of sub pixels (see ¶0078 and 0174) (the instant limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation on the device as claimed; in the instant case the repair part 107 is considered sufficient to be capable to reflect laser light onto the portion of the least one branch line overlapping with the repair part and cut the least one branch line to deactivate one of the plurality of sub pixels)
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the at least one branch line (Fig. 8A: 105).
Park fails to disclose wherein the portion of the at least one branch line having the laminated structure overlaps with the emission area.
Koezuka discloses wherein the portion of the at least one branch having the laminated structure overlaps with the emission area (Fig. 7D: where 120a and 108n are overlapped), wherein the transparent oxide film (In-Sn oxide, In-W oxide, IN-Ti oxide, In-Zn oxide or In-Ga-Zn oxide) is laminated on a semiconductor layer to improve optical transparency and interface stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the laminate structure of Koezuka into the device of Park to enhance optical transparency and improve the interface characteristics between the conductive line and the semiconductor region. Transparent oxide films were well known in the art for providing both optical transmittance and excellent barrier properties at semiconductor interfaces. Substituting or adding such a transparent oxide layer to form a laminated structure in Park’s device would have been a predictable design choice yielding improved optical and electrical performance without changing the basic operation of Park’s circuit, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the repair part (Figs. 4, 5A and 7). The claim differs only in that repair part is Y-shaped or the repair part includes a base portion that forks into two protruding portions. The particular geometric configuration of repair part is deemed an obvious matter of design choice because the shape does not patentably distinguish over the prior art where no new or unexpected result is shown. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI) (“Obviousness of changes in shape or size”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of repair part to have a Y-shaped or the repair part includes a base portion that forks into two protruding portions form to achieve a similar connection or support structure, since such geometric variations are routinely used in the art according to design preference.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses wherein the repair part (Fig. 4: Y or 107 in Fig. 7) overlaps with the at least one branch line (Fig. 4: 105 or 105 in Fig. 7) and is disposed on a same layer as the gate line (GL and Y in Figs. 4 and GL and 107 in Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses wherein the repair part (Fig. 4: Y) includes: a first repair part overlapping with the at least one branch line (Fig. 4: 105) and a second repair part extending from the first repair part (105) and connected to the gate line (Fig. 4: GL) (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image2.png
639
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses wherein a portion of the at least one branch line (Fig. 8A: 105) overlapping with the first repair part (Fig. 8A: 107).
Park therefore teaches the overall circuit configuration and conductive line structure but does not explicitly disclose includes a laminated structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer.
Koezuka discloses a laminate structure including a semiconductor layer (Fig. 7D: 108n which is an extension of 108) and a transparent oxide layer (Fig. 7D: 120a) wherein the transparent oxide film (In-Sn oxide, In-W oxide, IN-Ti oxide, In-Zn oxide or In-Ga-Zn oxide) is laminated on a semiconductor layer to improve optical transparency and interface stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the laminate structure of Koezuka into the device of Park to enhance optical transparency and improve the interface characteristics between the conductive line and the semiconductor region. Transparent oxide films were well known in the art for providing both optical transmittance and excellent barrier properties at semiconductor interfaces. Substituting or adding such a transparent oxide layer to form a laminated structure in Park’s device would have been a predictable design choice yielding improved optical and electrical performance without changing the basic operation of Park’s circuit, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses (Fig. 8A) wherein the repair part (107) is disposed to overlap with the at least one branch line (105) above an anode (150) disposed in the non-emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
PNG
media_image3.png
386
809
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the at least one signal line (¶0053 signal lines may include a gate line GL, a data line DL, a sensing control line SCL, a voltage supply line PLA, a voltage line PLB and a sensing line SL) includes:
at least one high potential power line disposed in the non-emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below);
at least one data line disposed in the non-emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below); and
at least one reference line disposed in the non-emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below and ¶0053).
PNG
media_image4.png
638
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses (see Examiner’s Mark -up below and Fig. 4) wherein the gate line (GS) includes a branched portion (see Examiner’s Mark -up below) including a first bridge line (see Examiner’s Mark -up below) and a second bridge line (see Examiner’s Mark -up below), the branched portion of gate line overlapping with at least one of the at least one high potential power line (see Examiner’s Mark -up below), the at least one data line, and the at least one reference line.
PNG
media_image5.png
647
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses wherein the at least one branch line (105, 106) includes: at least one reference branch line (see Examiner’s Mark -up below) connected to the at least one reference line and configured to apply a reference voltage (Vref) to the plurality of sub pixels (¶0050) (the instant limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation on the device as claimed; in the instant case at least one reference branch line is considered sufficient to be capable to apply a reference voltage (Vref) to the plurality of sub pixels);
and at least one data branch line (see Examiner’s Mark -up below) connected to the at least one data line and configured to apply a data voltage (¶008, 0047) to the plurality of sub pixels (the instant limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation on the device as claimed; in the instant case at least one data branch line is considered sufficient to be capable to apply a data voltage (Vref) to the plurality of sub pixels).
PNG
media_image6.png
641
816
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses wherein the at least one signal line (Figs. 2 and 4: PLA) extends in a second direction intersecting with the first direction (it is noted that the first direction is referred to the first direction of the gate line; see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding independent claim 18, Park discloses a display device (Fig. 4), comprising:
a plurality of sub pixels (Fig. 4: RWGB) disposed on a substrate (¶0056) including an emission area and a non- emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4);
a gate line (GL: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) disposed in the non-emission area, the gate line (GL) extending in a first direction;
a first signal line (PLA1: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4; it is noted that ¶0053 discloses that signal lines may include a gate line GL, a data line DL, a sensing control line SCL, a voltage supply line PLA, a voltage line PLB and a sensing line SL) overlapping with the gate line (GL), the first signal line (PLA1) extending in a second direction;
a first branch line (105: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) disposed in the emission area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below for emission area) and connected to the first signal line (PLA1);
a second signal line (PLA2: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) overlapping with the gate line (GL), the second signal line (PLA2) extending in the second direction;
a second branch line (106: Examiner’s Mark-up below and Fig. 4) disposed in the emission area and connected to the second signal line (PLA2);
a repair part (Y or 107: Examiner’s Mark-up below and ¶0119 and Fig. 4; also see Fig. 7 which is an enlarged exemplary view illustrating an area Y shown in FIG. 4) disposed between the first branch line (105) and the second branch line (106); and
an insulating layer (Fig. 8A: 131) disposed between the repair part (107) and the first (105) and second branch lines (106),
wherein a first portion (left side portion) of the repair part (Fig. 8A: 107) overlaps with a portion of the first branch line (105) and a second portion (right side portion) of the repair part (Fig. 8A: 107) overlaps with a portion of the second branch line (106).
Park fails to disclose wherein a portion of the at least one branch line includes a laminated structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer.
Koezuka discloses a laminate structure including a semiconductor layer (Fig. 7D: 108n which is an extension of 108) and a transparent oxide layer (Fig. 7D: 120a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the laminate structure of Koezuka into the device of Park to enhance optical transparency and improve the interface characteristics between the conductive line and the semiconductor region. Transparent oxide films were well known in the art for providing both optical transmittance and excellent barrier properties at semiconductor interfaces. Substituting or adding such a transparent oxide layer to form a laminated structure in Park’s device would have been a predictable design choice yielding improved optical and electrical performance without changing the basic operation of Park’s circuit, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Park to include a laminate structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer, as taught by Koezuka, to obtain the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2022/0199655 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Pub # 2023/0317856 to Koezuka et al. (Koezuka) and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0052141 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding claim 19, Park as previous modified discloses wherein the first branch line (such as branch voltage supply line 105) and the second branch line (such as branch voltage supply line 106).
Park as previous modified fails to explicitly disclose the first branch line and the second branch line include a transparent material.
Lee discloses the first branch line and the second branch line include a transparent material (such as ITO/Al/ITO).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first branch line and the second branch line of Park with the transparent material as taught by Lee in order to increase reflectivity (¶0227). It would have been obvious to form the first and second branch lines from a transparent conductive oxide, such as indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium zinc oxide (IZO), to improve aperture ratio and maintain optical transparency, as taught by Lee in order to increase reflectivity (¶0227). Substituting a known transparent conductive material for the branch lines of Park represents a predictable design choice yielding the same electrical function with the additional advantage of transparency, consistent with MPEP §2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to include a transparent branch (voltage supply) line as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2022/0199655 to Park et al. (Park) in view of US Pub # 2023/0317856 to Koezuka et al. (Koezuka) and further in view of US Pub # 2021/0328002 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding claim 20, Park as previous modified discloses the first portion of the repair part (Fig. 8A: for example, to the left side of 107) is configured to reflect laser light onto the portion of the first branch line (105) (see ¶0131-0132), (the instant limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation on the device as claimed; in the instant case the repair part 107 comprising reflective material such as aluminum or silver or gold is considered sufficient to be capable to reflect laser light onto the portion of the first branch line),
the second portion of the repair part (Fig. 8A: for example, to the right side of 107) is configured to reflect the laser light onto the portion of the second branch line (106) (see ¶0131-0132) (the instant limitation is considered functional language and given limited patentable weight to the extent it imparts a further structural limitation on the device as claimed; in the instant case the repair part 107 comprising reflective material such as aluminum or silver or gold is considered sufficient to be capable to reflect laser light onto the portion of the second branch line).
Park as previous modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the repair part and the second portion of the repair part includes the reflective material.
Lee discloses wherein the first portion of the repair part and the second portion of the repair part includes the reflective material (¶20091).
It would have been obvious to form the repair part from a reflective material, such as aluminum, silver or gold as taught by Lee so as to repair a pixel in the event of a defect in the pixel circuit (¶0088 of Lee). Substituting a known reflective material for the repair part of Park represents a predictable design choice yielding the same electrical function with the additional advantage of transparency, consistent with MPEP §2143(I)(B) and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to include a reflective material as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the repair part overlaps with the at least one branch line, and the repair part is disposed on a same layer as a light shielding layer disposed in the non-emission area.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/05/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Koezuka does not disclose that a branch line for transmitting a signal has a laminated structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer formed on the semiconductor layer. The argument is not persuasive.
First, the rejection does not rely on Koezuka to disclose the claimed branch line. Park expressly teaches a branch line (signal line) for transmitting a signal (e.g., Fig. 8A: 105). Thus, Applicant’s argument that Koezuka fails to disclose a branch line is not responsive to the rejection.
Second, Koezuka expressly discloses a laminated structure including a semiconductor layer and a transparent oxide layer. For example, Fig. 7D shows semiconductor layer 108n with a transparent oxide layer 120a formed thereon (see also corresponding description identifying transparent oxide films such as In–Sn oxide, In–Ga–Zn oxide, etc.). These layers are arranged in a stacked configuration, thereby meeting the claimed laminated structure.
Third, Applicant’s argument that the laminated structure of Koezuka is located in a different portion of the device is not persuasive. The rejection relies on Koezuka only for teaching the laminated semiconductor/oxide structure, which would have been applied to the branch line of Park. A reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, and the skilled artisan would have recognized the suitability of applying such a laminated structure to signal lines to achieve known advantages (MPEP §2143; KSR).
Furthermore, ¶0361 of Koezuka is cited as additional support, as it explicitly teaches that a signal line may be formed using the same conductive film as the source and drain electrodes. This further supports that the layered structures associated with transistor elements in Koezuka are applicable to signal lines, and thus reinforces the obviousness of applying the laminated semiconductor/oxide structure of Koezuka to the branch line of Park.
Also, Koezuka teaches that signal transmission may occur through various electrically functional elements, including semiconductor and electrode structures (¶0063), further supporting the applicability of its laminated structure to signal lines.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant refers to a “branch line for transmitting a signal”; however, the claims do not recite such a limitation. Rather, the claims merely recite a “branch line,” without specifying a particular function or purpose. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments improperly read additional limitations into the claims and are not persuasive.
In conclusion, while the Remarks pose valid interpretations of the claim limitations and make assertions based on those interpretations, Examiner respectfully submits that the interpretations used by the Remarks are not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations. Therefore, in light of this discussion, Examiner respectfully submits that the teachings of Park have been properly combined with the teachings of Koezuka to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations of the application at hand.
Consequently, Examiner respectfully submits that the claims of the application at hand stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2021/0272985 to Kim et al., US Pub # 2021/0359073 to Cha et al. and US Pub # 2021/0399078 to UM et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896