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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-19 remain pending in this application. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 06/25/2026. Claim 1 is amended.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the another protective layer is completely in contact with the plurality of second electrodes”, and includes the term “completely in contact”, which does not adequately define the metes and bounds of the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would only conclude that certain exemplary embodiments qualify, but without a definite criterion by which to ascertain whether any non-disclosed embodiments so qualifies. For example, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require an entire continuous surface of the another protective layer facing the plurality of second electrodes be in direct contact with a plurality of second electrodes; to require that a surface of the plurality of second electrodes facing the another protective layer to be in direct contact with the another protective layer; to require that all surfaces of the plurality of second electrodes to be in direct contact with the another protective layer; to require that the another protective layer be in contact with each and every one of the plurality of second electrodes; to require that the another protective layer and the plurality of second electrodes be in direct contact without an intervening layer; or some other meaning. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the another protective layer is completely in contact with the plurality of second electrodes” to mean “a surface of the plurality of second electrodes facing the another protective layer is in direct contact with the another protective layer”.
Regarding claims 2-19, the claims depend from rejected claim 1, includes all limitations of the claim and therefore are rejected for the same reason. The claims will be examined on the basis of interpretation of the rejected claim hereafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20210327906 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Tong (US 20150069438 A1, hereafter Tong).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches: An array substrate (Li 100, fig 1A, ¶0026), comprising:
a substrate (Li 100, ¶0026);
a trace layer (Li 101-114, ¶0026, 0033-0035), provided on the substrate (Li fig 1A);
a plurality of second electrodes (Li 123, ¶0031, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of an electrode), provided on a side of the substrate away from the trace layer (Li fig 1A, ¶0031), wherein the trace layer is electrically connected to the plurality of second electrodes (Li ¶0031, “123 is used to connect … the driving signal … to the display region”, at least indirectly electrically connected); and
another protective layer (Li 121, ¶0026, 0027, under BRI, 121 at least functions to protect the active layer), provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes (Li fig 1A, 121 is between 100 and 123); and
the another protective layer is completely in contact with the plurality of second electrodes (as best understood to mean “a surface of the plurality of second electrodes facing the another protective layer is in direct contact with the another protective layer”)(Li fig 1, ¶0026, a surface of 123 facing with and in direct contact with 121 within the via hole).
Li does not explicitly teach: a protective layer, provided between the substrate and the trace layer; and
wherein the protective layer is configured to absorb or reflect a laser light.
Tong, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a protective layer (Tong 203, ¶0022, 0029, 0039, “provides protection”), provided between a substrate (Tong 201, 202) and a trace layer (Tong 103, 209-213, ¶0028, 0032)(Tong fig 1, 2, ¶0029);
wherein the protective layer is configured to absorb or reflect a laser light (Tong ¶0029, 0034, “DBR 203 are adjusted to reflect light with a wavelength of 550 nm”, 203 is configured to reflect light of a certain wavelength and is therefore configured to and at least capable of reflecting a laser light of that wavelength, see MPEP 2114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the array substrate of Li to include the protective layer of Tong, between the substrate and the trace layer, as taught by Tong, in order to provide optical protection for the substrate and/or enhance a reflectance of light by the substrate (Tong ¶0022).
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 1, wherein at least one protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) includes a reflective layer (Tong 203, 205, 206, ¶0022, 0029, “Distributed Bragg Reflector”).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 2, wherein the reflective layer (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) includes at least two film layers provided in a stack (Tong 205, 206, fig 2, ¶0029);
wherein the reflective layer includes two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong ¶0029, “205 … with high index of refraction … 206 … having a low index of refraction”), and materials of two adjacent film layers are different (Tong ¶0029, “205 … TiO2, ZrO2, ZnSe, Si3N4, Nb2O5, or Ta2,O5”, “206 … SiO2, MgF2, Al2O3 or CaF2”).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 3, wherein the two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) include a first material (Tong 205, ¶0029, high-index dielectric); and
a product of a thickness of a film layer formed by the first material and a refractive index of the first material is 1/4 times a wavelength of light to be reflected by the reflective layer (Tong ¶0003, 0004, “determine how thick to make each layer of the stack so that the layer has a thickness of one quarter wavelength”).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 3, wherein the two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) include a second material (Tong 206, ¶0029, low-index dielectric); and
a product of a thickness of a film layer formed by the second material and a refractive index of the second material is 1/4 times a wavelength of the light to be reflected by the reflective layer (Tong ¶0003, 0004, “determine how thick to make each layer of the stack so that the layer has a thickness of one quarter wavelength”).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 5, wherein the two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) include a first material (Tong 205, ¶0029, high-index dielectric), the first material is titanium dioxide (Tong ¶0029, “205 … TiO2”), and a film layer formed by the first material is provided on the substrate (Tong fig 2, ¶0027).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 5, wherein the second material is silicon dioxide (Tong 206, ¶0029, “206 … SiO2”).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Tong, in at least one embodiment, teaches: The array substrate according to claim 1, wherein at least one protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) includes an energy absorbing layer (Tong 205, ¶0022, 0029, “205 … TiO2”, applicant discloses suitable materials of an energy absorbing layer include “titanium dioxide”, spec ¶0016; see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 8, wherein the energy absorbing layer has a band gap less than 3.5 eV (Tong 205, ¶0029, “205 … TiO2”, applicant discloses suitable materials of an energy absorbing layer having a band gap less than 3.5 eV include “titanium dioxide”, spec ¶0016; see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 9, wherein a material of the energy absorbing layer is titanium dioxide (Tong 205, ¶0029, “205 … TiO2”).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 1, wherein the trace layer (Li 101-114, similar to Tong 103, 209-213) includes a plurality of connection traces (Li 1101, 1102, ¶0035, under a BRI of a connection trace), and the plurality of connection traces are electrically connected to the plurality of second electrodes (Li 123)(Li fig 1A, ¶0031, “123 is used to connect … the driving signal … to the display region”, at least indirectly electrically connected); and
an orthographic projection of the plurality of connection traces on the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202) is located within an orthographic projection of the at least one protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) on the substrate (Tong ¶0029, 0030, formed continuously over the entire surface of the substrate, any projection on to the substrate must therefore also fall within the protection layer).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 1, wherein the trace layer (Li 101-114, similar to Tong 103, 209-213) includes a driving circuit layer (Li 102-108, ¶0026, 0033-0035), and the driving circuit layer includes:
an active layer (Li 102, ¶0026, 0033), provided on the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202)(Li fig 1A, similar to Tong fig 2) or the protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) provided between the substrate and the trace layer (Tong fig 2); and
a gate layer (Li 104, ¶0033), provided on a side of the active layer away from the substrate (Li fig 1A;
wherein an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the at least one protective layer (Li 121, Tong 203) on the substrate (Li fig 1A, Tong ¶0029, 0030, respectively, where Tong 203 is formed continuously over the entire surface of the substrate, any projection on to the substrate must therefore also fall within the protection layer).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Tong teaches: A display panel (Li ¶0052), comprising:
the array substrate according to claim 1, further including a driving circuit layer (Li 102-108, ¶0026, 0033-0035) provided on the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202)(Li fig 1A); and
a plurality of light-emitting devices, arranged in an array on a side of the driving circuit layer away from the substrate (Li ¶0002, 0009, 0035, 0052, similar to Tong 211, fig 2).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20210327906 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Tong (US 20150069438 A1, hereafter Tong), as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20180190631 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Tong teaches: A display device, comprising: the display panel according to claim 13, and a driving circuit board, provided on a side of the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202) away from the trace layer (Li 101-114, similar to Tong 103, 209-213)(Li ¶0024, 0031).
Li in view of Tong does not teach: a flexible circuit board, wherein the driving circuit board is electrically connected to the trace layer through the flexible circuit board.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a flexible circuit board (Kim 20, 40, 50, ¶0074 0080), wherein a driving circuit board (Kim 60, ¶0085) is electrically connected to a trace layer (Kim PC, DPP, ¶0067, 0150) through the flexible circuit board (Kim ¶0079, 0083-0085, 0089, fig 5, 6, 12, 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li in view of Tong to include the flexible circuit board of Kim, and such that “wherein the driving circuit board is electrically connected to the trace layer through the flexible circuit board”, in order to connect the driving circuits to the trace layer, thereby providing a control signal, without increasing the bezel area of the device (Kim ¶0008, 0074, 0250, Li ¶0010).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Tong and Kim teaches: A tiled display apparatus, comprising a plurality of display devices each according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of display devices are tiled together (Li ¶0010, Kim ¶0235, 0236, 0249, fig 20).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20210327906 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Tong (US 20150069438 A1, hereafter Tong), as applied to claims 3 or 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al (CN 112531086 A, English translation of description provided, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) provided between the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202) and the trace layer (Li 101-114, similar to Tong 103, 209-213) includes an energy absorbing layer (Tong 205, ¶0022, 0029, “205 … TiO2”, applicant discloses suitable materials of an energy absorbing layer include “titanium dioxide”, spec ¶0016; see MPEP 2112.01),
the protective layer (Li as modified to include Tong 203) provided between the substrate (Li 100, similar to Tong 201, 202) and the trace layer (Li 101-114, similar to Tong 103, 209-213) includes a reflective layer (Tong 203, 205, 206, ¶0022, 0029, “Distributed Bragg Reflector”).
Li in view of Tong does not teach: the another protective layer provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes includes a reflective layer; or
the another protective layer provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes includes an energy absorbing layer.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a protective layer (Wang 100, ¶0096, 0102, at least capable of providing protection from edge chipping) provided in direct contact with a backside of a substrate (Wang 301, ¶0099, 0102, 0106, fig 3b, 5, initial layer is Wang 1012) includes a reflective layer (Wang 1012, 1011, ¶0096); or
a protective layer (Wang 100, ¶0096, 0102, at least capable of providing protection from edge chipping) provided in direct contact with a backside of a substrate (Wang 301, ¶0099, 0102, 0106, fig 3b, 5, initial layer is Wang 1012) includes an energy absorbing layer (Wang 1012, ¶0097, “second material … TiO2”, applicant discloses suitable materials of an energy absorbing layer include “titanium dioxide”, spec ¶0016; see MPEP 2112.01).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the another protective layer of Li in view of Tong to include the protective structure of Wang between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes, such that “the another protective layer provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes includes a reflective layer; or the another protective layer provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes includes an energy absorbing layer”, in order to prevent edge chipping during a cutting process (Wang ¶0102).
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 3, wherein the two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) include a first material (Tong ¶0029, “205 … TiO2, ZrO2, ZnSe, Si3N4, Nb2O5, or Ta2,O5”) and a second material (Tong ¶0029 “206 … SiO2, MgF2, Al2O3 or CaF2”), wherein
a refractive index of the first material is greater than a refractive index of the second material (Tong ¶0029, “205 … with high index of refraction … 206 … having a low index of refraction”).
Li in view of Tong does not teach: a film layer formed by the first material is provided between the substrate and a film layer formed by the second material.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: a film layer formed by a first material (Wang 1012, ¶0097, “second material … TiO2”, fig 3b, similar to Tong 205) is provided between a substrate (Wang 301, ¶0106) and a film layer formed by a second material (Wang 1011, ¶0097, “first material … SiO”, fig 3b, similar to Tong 206)(Wang ¶0099, 0102, fig 3b, 5, initial layer is Wang 1012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reflective layer of Li in view of Tong such the first material is provided between the substrate and the second material, as taught by Wang, in order to improve the reflective effect and/or in order to prevent edge chipping during a cutting process (Wang ¶0102).
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 3, wherein the two materials with different refractive indexes (Tong 203, 205, 206, Li as modified to include Tong 203) include a first material (Tong ¶0029, “205 … TiO2, ZrO2, ZnSe, Si3N4, Nb2O5, or Ta2,O5”) and a second material (Tong ¶0029 “206 … SiO2, MgF2, Al2O3 or CaF2”), wherein
the first material forms at least one first film layer (Tong 205), the second material forms at least one second film layer (Tong 206), and the at least one first film layer are alternately arranged with the at least one second film layer (Tong fig 2); and
a refractive index of the first material is greater than a refractive index of the second material (Tong ¶0029, “205 … with high index of refraction … 206 … having a low index of refraction”).
Li in view of Tong does not teach: in a reflective layer, a film layer closest to the substrate is a first film layer.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches: in a reflective layer (Wang 100, ¶0096), a film layer closest to a substrate (Wang 301, ¶0106) is a first film layer (Wang 1012, ¶0097, “second material … TiO2”, fig 3b, similar to Tong 205)(Wang ¶0099, 0102, fig 3b, 5, initial layer is Wang 1012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reflective layer of Li in view of Tong such the first film layer closest to the substrate, as taught by Wang, in order to improve the reflective effect and/or in order to prevent edge chipping during a cutting process (Wang ¶0102).
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of Tong teaches: The array substrate according to claim 6.
Li in view of Tong does not teach: wherein the film layer formed by the first material is located between the substrate and a film layer formed by the second material.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor device manufacturing, teaches:
a film layer formed by a first material (Wang 1012, ¶0097, “second material … TiO2”, fig 3b, similar to Tong 205) is located between a substrate (Wang 301, ¶0106) and a film layer formed by a second material (Wang 1011, ¶0097, “first material … SiO”, fig 3b, similar to Tong 206)(Wang ¶0099, 0102, fig 3b, 5, initial layer is Wang 1012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reflective layer of Li in view of Tong such the first material is located between the substrate and the second material, as taught by Wang, in order to improve the reflective effect and/or in order to prevent edge chipping during a cutting process (Wang ¶0102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant alleges at page 9:
… the metal light shielding layer [Li 121] (which is considered by the Examiner as the protective layer of amended claim 1) is used to block the ambient lights, rather than to absorb or reflect externally irradiated laser light.
Examiner’s response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current or previous rejections of record do not rely on the metal light shielding layer 121 of Li for the protective layer; instead, 121 is relied upon as the another protective layer. The protective layer is taught by the DBR 203 of Tong, as set forth in the rejection above.
The applicant further alleges at page 9:
As for Tong, according to paragraph [0034] of Tong, "after partially making multiple bounces within LED assembly 100, exits the assembly as the exiting light 230 with an average wavelength of about 550 nm. The average wavelength of the light traveling downward is also 550 nm, so the thicknesses of upper reflector layer 205 and lower reflector layer 206 of DBR 203 are adjusted to reflect light with a wavelength of 550 nm". Based on this, DBR 203 (which is considered by the Examiner as the protective layer of amended claim 1) is used to reflect the exiting light 230 from the LED assembly 100 and increase the total amount of light emitted by the LED assembly 100, rather than to absorb or reflect externally irradiated laser light.
Examiner’s response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As stated by the applicant above: “the thicknesses of upper reflector layer 205 and lower reflector layer 206 of DBR 203 are adjusted to reflect light with a wavelength of 550 nm” (Tong ¶0034); DBR 203 is therefore capable of reflecting a laser light of at least that wavelength.
The applicant further alleges at pages 10 and 11:
Based on this, Tong does not disclose or involve the plurality of second electrodes disposed on one side of the entire metal packaging sheet 201 and the reflective metal layer 202 (which are considered by the Examiner as the substrate of amended claim 1). On this basis, Tong does not disclose or involve the presence of a protective layer between the 201/202 and the plurality of second electrodes, nor does Tong disclose or involve the relationship between this protective layer and the plurality of second electrodes.
Examiner’s response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the relationship between the protective layer and the plurality of second electrodes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, claim 1’s only relationship requirement for the protective layer is to be provided between the substrate and the trace layer, which Tong teaches, as stated in the above rejection.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, Li is relied upon for the another protective layer provided between the substrate and the plurality of second electrodes, as stated in the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu (US 20210233899 A1) is cited as an example of an analogous device further teaching a metal light shielding layer and a backside circuit layer.
Kao et al (US 20200161244 A1) is cited as an example of an analogous device further teaching another protective layer between a substrate and a second electrode on a backside of the substrate.
Kwon et al (US 9761650 B2) is cited as an example of an analogous device further teaching a protective layer to protect a substrate from laser light during removal of a support.
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 NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD whose telephone number is (703)756-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0800-1700 Eastern Time.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 272-3829. 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.
/NICHOLAS B. MICHAUD/
EXAMINER
Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights