DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I (claims 1-15, and 17-20) in the reply filed on 2/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species III and alleged Species IV are not mutually exclusive with one another, and that with 26 total and 4 independent claims, the Office would not be unduly burdened in the examination of each pending group and alleged Species, and in the view of the above, Applicants submit that the search and examination of all the claims may be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because there are no claims (i.e. color conversion layer, optical layer, second bank, etc.) that are directed towards the alleged Species IV, but further, the claims directed towards Group I are directed towards device, which require a search in class H10W whereas the claims directed towards Group II are directed towards process, which require a separate search in class H10P. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper, and therefore made FINAL.
Claim 16, and 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/5/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear how FIG. 15 and FIG. 3 are views of each other. For example, FIG. 15 shows the chip-on-film COF only on the top surface of the pad area PDA, but in FIG. 3 shows the chip-on-film COF encircling the pad area PDA. Also, it appears (see, for example, FIG. 3) that the chip-on-film COF is around both sides of the base layer BSL, but in FIG. 15, it appears the chip-on-film COF is only on the one side of the base layer BSL. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a chip-on-film including a first portion electrically connected to the conductive element and a second portion electrically connected to a flexible circuit component (claim 7), the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode are electrically insulating form the conductive pattern layer (claim 15), and the conductive element disposed on the first electrode and the second electrode (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 7 thru 15, and 17 thru 20 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a chip-on-film including a first portion electrically
connected to the conductive element and a second portion electrically connected to a flexible circuit component”; however, it appears (see, for example, FIG. 15) that the chip-on-film COF is only connected to the conductive element CE through the conductive connector CP, and conductive pattern layer CO, and there is not a second portion connected to a flexible circuit component. Further, it is unclear how the applicant is defining a conductive element since it appears (see, for example, FIG. 2) the conductive element CE includes the conductive pattern layer CO, but in FIG. 15, the conductive element CE and conductive pattern layer CO are separate structures. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode are electrically insulating form the conductive pattern layer”; however, it appears (see, for example, FIG. 7) that the first connection electrode CNE1, and second connection electrode CNE2 are electrically connected to the conductive pattern layer CO through the conductive element CE. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a conductive element disposed on the first electrode and
the second electrode;”; however, it appears (see, for example, FIG. 7) there are two separate conductive elements wherein one conductive element is on the first electrode ELT1, and the other conductive element is on the second electrode ELT2, rather than a single conductive element. Claim 20 contains a similar limitation. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "components" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 thru 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. US 2009/0267049 A1. Cho discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1A) a conductive element 100 comprising a first semiconductor layer 110b, second semiconductor layer 110c, active layer 110a, element insulating layer 130, and conductive pattern layer 120. In paragraph [0061], Cho discloses the conductive pattern layer 120 includes gold, silver, etc.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, FIG. 1B wherein Cho discloses the conductive
pattern layer 120 surrounds the element insulating layer 130 in a cross-sectional direction of the conductive element 100, and the cross-sectional direction is different from a direction from the first end portion toward the second end portion.
Regarding claim 3, see, for example, paragraph [0061] and FIG. 1A wherein Cho discloses the conductive pattern layer 120 includes gold, silver, etc. and is electrically insulated from the first semiconductor layer 110b, the second semiconductor layer 110c, and the active layer 110a by the element insulating layer 130.
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, FIG. 1A wherein Cho discloses the conductive pattern layer 120 exposes a first portion of the element insulating layer 130 adjacent to the first end portion and a second portion of the element insulating layer 130 adjacent to the second end portion.
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) 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US 2009/0267049 A1 as applied to claims 1-4 above. In paragraph [0062], Cho discloses the conductive pattern layer 120 having generally no maximum thickness, but does not specifically disclose the conductive pattern layer having a thickness in a range of about 200 nm to about 350 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive pattern layer having a thickness in a range of about 200 nm to about 350 nm in order to ensure coupling between the conductive layer and active region for enhanced light emission rate and efficiency, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1a) the second length of the
conductive element 120 being shorter than the first length of the element isolating layer 130, but does not specifically disclose the conductive element having a first length in a direction from the first end portion toward the second end portion, the conductive pattern layer having a second length in the direction from the first end portion toward the second end portion, and a ratio of the first length to the second length being in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.6. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have disclose the conductive element having a first length in a direction from the first end portion toward the second end portion, the conductive pattern layer having a second length in the direction from the first end portion toward the second end portion, and a ratio of the first length to the second length being in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.6 in order to improve light emission, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In view of the 112 rejection, claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US 2009/0267049 A1 as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of KR 10-2018-0117182 (Lee et al. US 2021/0384252 A1). Cho does not disclose a first electrode and a second electrode disposed on a base layer; a conductive element disposed on the first electrode and the second electrode; a first connection electrode electrically connected to a first end portion of the conductive element; and a second connection electrode electrically connected to a second end portion of the conductive element. However, Lee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 5) a display device comprising a first electrode CPL1_1, second electrode CPL2, base layer SUB, conductive element LD1, first connection electrode CNE1_1, and second connection electrode CNE2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a first electrode and a second electrode disposed on a base layer; a conductive element disposed on the first electrode and the second electrode; a first connection electrode electrically connected to a first end portion of the conductive element; and a second connection electrode electrically connected to a second end portion of the conductive element in order to implement the conductive element into more robust devices like displays that require pixel arrays.
In view of the 112 rejection, claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US 2009/0267049 A1 as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Li US 2021/0005675 A1. Cho discloses a plurality of conductive elements, but does not clearly disclose a pad line disposed on a base layer; a chip-on-film including a first portion electrically connected to the plurality of conductive elements and a second portion electrically connected to a flexible circuit component; and a non-conductive coupling layer coupling the chip-on-film to some of components disposed on the base layer. However, Li discloses (see, for example, FIG. 5) a display device comprising a light emitting layer 105 on a pad line 104/133 on a base layer 102, a chip-on film 136, flexible circuit component 135, and a non-conductive coupling layer 103/132. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a pad line disposed on a base layer; a chip-on-film including a first portion electrically connected to the plurality of conductive elements and a second portion electrically connected to a flexible circuit component; and a non-conductive coupling layer coupling the chip-on-film to some of components disposed on the base layer in order to implement the conductive element into devices that utilize bending for making slimmer panel designs that prioritize space.
In view of the 112 rejection, claim(s) 7 thru 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US 2009/0267049 A1 in view of Li US 2021/0005675 A1 as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of KR 10-2018-0117182 (Lee et al. US 2021/0384252 A1). Cho in view of Li does not disclose a pad line disposed in a pad area on a base layer, the pad line including a first alignment pad line and a second alignment pad line; a conductive element including at least a portion disposed on the first alignment pad line and the second alignment pad line. However, Lee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 5) a display device comprising a base layer SUB, a pad line including a first alignment pad line CPL1_1, second alignment pad line CPL2, and conductive element LD1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a pad line disposed in a pad area on a base layer, the pad line including a first alignment pad line and a second alignment pad line; a conductive element including at least a portion disposed on the first alignment pad line and the second alignment pad line in order to structure multiple pixels horizontally while making other connections in the display device.
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses the first alignment pad
line CPL1_1, and second alignment pad line CPL2 being spaced apart from each other, and FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses a plurality of conductive elements LD1.
Regarding claims 9, and 10, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses the pad line including a first connection electrode CNE1_1, and second connection electrode CNE2 that contact the conductive element LD1.
Regarding claim 11, Lee does not disclose a distance between the first alignment pad line and the second alignment pad line being smaller than a length of the conductive pattern layer; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the first alignment pad line and the second alignment pad line being smaller than a length of the conductive pattern layer in order to minimize size and stabilize the conductive element within the display device.
Regarding claim 12, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Li discloses a non-conductive coupling layer 103/132, and conductive connector 133.
Regarding claim 13, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses a display device comprising a first electrode CPL1_1, second electrode CPL2, and base layer SUB.
Regarding claim 14, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses a first insulating layer INS1, and insulating pattern layers INS3.
Regarding claim 15, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses a first connection electrode CNE1_1, and second connection electrode CNE2 that contact the conductive element LD1.
Regarding claim 17, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses a first insulating layer INS3, and a space between the LD1 and the first insulating layer INS3 wherein the conductive pattern layer is not disposed.
Regarding claim 18, see, for example, FIG. 5 wherein Lee discloses a second insulating layer INS4.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
February 16, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815