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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 7 and 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0352252) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 4 and 8 of Lee teach an electronic device, comprising: a substrate (Item 110) comprising an active area (Item DPA) and a peripheral area (Item NDA); a conductive layer (Item 220) disposed on the substrate (Item 110) and in the peripheral area (Item NDA; See Examiner’s Note below), wherein the conductive layer (Item 220) comprises a plurality of branch portions (Items 220B); a plurality of bonding pads (Items 262) respectively disposed on the plurality of branch portions (Item 220B) of the conductive layer (Item 220); and an insulating layer (Item 510) disposed between the conductive layer (Item 220) and the plurality of bonding pads (Item 262; wherein one of the plurality of bonding bads (Items 262); where one of the plurality of bonding pads (Items 262) covers a sidewall of one of the plurality of branch portions (Items 220B) of the conductive layer (Item 220) in a cross-sectional view (See Fig. 6).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that “disposed on the substrate and in the peripheral area” does not require that the entirety of the conductive layer is in the peripheral area. In Fig. 8 of Lee Item 220 (Specifically portion Item 220B) extends in the display area and the peripheral area.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where a projected area of one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item 262) on the substrate (Item 110) is different from a projected area of one of the plurality of branch portions (Item 220B) of the conductive layer on the substrate (Item 110) in a normal direction of the substrate (Item 110).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 6 of Lee further teaches where the insulating layer (Item 510) comprises an opening exposing a part of the conductive layer (220), and one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item 262) directly contacts the conductive layer (Item 220) through the opening of the insulating layer (Item 510).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 6 of Lee further teaches another insulating layer (Item 180) disposed between the substrate (Item 110) and conductive layer (Item 210).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 4 and 6 of Lee further teaches where a width of another one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item 262) is greater than a width of one of the branch portions (Item 220B) of the conductive layer (Item 220) in the cross-sectional view.
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where the conductive layer (Item 220) further comprises a main portion (Item 220S) and at least one of the plurality of branch portions (Item 220B) is electrically connected to the main portion (Item 220S).
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 6 of Lee further teaches a semiconductor layer (Item 310) disposed on the substrate (Item 110), and the conductive layer (Item 220) is disposed on (See Examiner’s Note below) the semiconductor layer (Item 320).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the conductive layer is on a side of the semiconductor layer opposite that of the side of the semiconductor layer that the substrate is on.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 4 of Lee further teaches where another one of the plurality of branch portions (Item 220B) has a first length, one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item 262) has a second length, and the first length is greater than the second length.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1, 6 and 10 of Park teach an electronic device, comprising: a substrate (Item 101) comprising an active area (Item DA) and a peripheral area (Item NDA); a conductive layer (Conductive layer that contains all Items SL and RE) disposed on the substrate (Item 101) and in the peripheral area (Item NDA), wherein the conductive layer comprises a plurality of branch portions (respective Items SL; See Examiner’s Note below); a plurality of bonding pads (Items PE) respectively disposed on the plurality of branch portions (Items SL and RE) of the conductive layer; and an insulating layer (Item 162) disposed between the conductive layer (Conductive layer that contains all Items SL and RE) and the plurality of bonding pads (Items PE), wherein one of the plurality of bonding bads (Item PE) covers a sidewall (Where Item PE11 is over and thus covers a sidewall of Item SL11a; See Examiner’s Note 2 below) of one of the plurality of branch portions (Item SL) of the conductive layer in a cross section (See Fig. 9).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that each of the Items SL are branches within the conductive layer that branch off from Item D_IC (See Park Paragraphs 0061 and 0062 where Items SL extend from the D-IC to the display area). Further, claim 1 does not require that another portion of the conductive layer is continuous with and in the same layer as the plurality of branches.
Examiner’s Note 2: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the bonding pad covers the sidewall of the branch portion by directly contacting it nor does the language require that the bonding pad has to laterally cover the sidewall of the branch portion.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 6 of Park further teaches where a projected area of one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item PE) on the substrate (Item 101) is different from a projected area of one of the plurality of branch portions (Item SL21) of the conductive layer on the substrate (Item 101) in a normal direction of the substrate (Item 101).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 10 of Park further teaches where the insulating layer (Item 162) comprises an opening exposing a part of the conductive layer (Conductive layer that contains all Items SL and RE), and one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item PE) directly contacts the conductive layer through the opening of the insulating layer (Item 162).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 10 of Park further teaches another insulating layer (Item 161) disposed between the substrate (Item 101) and conductive layer (Conductive layer that contains all Items SL and RE).
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 10 of Park further teaches where a width of another one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item PE) is greater than a width of one of the branch portions of the conductive layer in the cross-sectional view.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 6 of Park further teaches where one of the plurality of branch portions (Items SL) comprises a first portion (Bottom part of Item SL21a) and a second portion (Item SL21b), and there is a space between the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 6 of Park further teaches where two adjacent branch portions of the plurality of branch portions respectively comprise a first region (Narrow portions of SL) and a second region (Wide portions of SL), the second region is closer to an edge of the substrate than the first region, and a distance between the first regions of the two adjacent branch portions is greater than a distance between the second regions of the two adjacent branch portions.
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 6 of Park further teaches where a length of the first region is less than a length of the second region.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0352252) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Liu (US 2024/0032348) hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprises a plurality of metal layers.
Fig. 6 of Liu teaches where a bonding pad (Item BP) comprises a plurality of metal layers (Paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprise a plurality of metal layers because each of the metal layers can serve a different function such as better conductivity and prevention of oxidation (Liu Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprises a first sub bonding pad and a second sub bonding pad, and there is a space between the first sub bonding pad and the second sub bonding pad.
Fig. 6 of Liu teaches where a bonding pad (Item BP) comprises a first sub bonding pad (Item ML1), a second sub bonding pad (Item ML3) and a third sub bonding pad (Item ML2), where the first and second sub bonding pads have a space between them (Where the space between the first and second bonding pad is occupied by the third bonding pad) (Paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprise a first sub bonding pad and a second sub bonding pad, where there is a space between the first sub bonding pad and the second sub bonding pad because each of the sub bonding pads can serve a different function such as better conductivity and prevention of oxidation (Liu Paragraph 0067).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Liu (US 2024/0032348) hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 13 of Park further teaches where one of the plurality of bonding pads (Item PE) comprises a plurality of layers (Items PE11”_1 and PE11”_2).
While one having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Park disclosure that the plurality of layers of the bonding pads in Park are metal layers, Park does not explicitly teach where the plurality of layers in the another one of the plurality of bonding pads are metal.
Fig. 6 of Liu teaches where a bonding pad (Item BP) comprises a plurality of metal layers (Paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprise a plurality of metal layers because each of the metal layers can serve a different function such as better conductivity and prevention of oxidation (Liu Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprises a first sub bonding pad and a second sub bonding pad, and there is a space between the first sub bonding pad and the second sub bonding pad.
Fig. 6 of Liu teaches where a bonding pad (Item BP) comprises a first sub bonding pad (Item ML1), a second sub bonding pad (Item ML3) and a third sub bonding pad (Item ML2), where the first and second sub bonding pads have a space between them (Where the space between the first and second bonding pad is occupied by the third bonding pad) (Paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the another one of the plurality of bonding pads comprise a first sub bonding pad and a second sub bonding pad, where there is a space between the first sub bonding pad and the second sub bonding pad because each of the sub bonding pads can serve a different function such as better conductivity and prevention of oxidation (Liu Paragraph 0067).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0352252) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0415980) hereinafter “Lee2”.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the electronic device is a vehicle electronic device.
Lee2 teaches where a display is used in a vehicle (Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electronic device be a vehicle electronic device because a display is known to be used in a side mirror of a vehicle (Lee2 Paragraph 0059).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0415980) hereinafter “Lee2”.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the electronic device is a vehicle electronic device.
Lee2 teaches where a display is used in a vehicle (Paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electronic device be a vehicle electronic device because a display is known to be used in a side mirror of a vehicle (Lee2 Paragraph 0059).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Hyun et al. (US 2022/0291782) hereinafter “Hyun”.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park further teaches a printed circuit board disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of bonding pads and the conductive layer (Paragraph 0061).
Park does not explicitly teach where the printed circuit board is flexible.
Hyun teaches where a printed circuit board is flexible (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the printed circuit board be flexible because this allows the printed circuit board to conform to whatever substrate is being utilized such as when the substrate itself is flexible which allows it to be used in numerous applications (Hyun Paragraph 0070).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Hyun et al. (US 2022/0291782) hereinafter “Hyun” and in further view of Son et al. (US 2023/0297202) hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park and Hyun teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the flexible circuit board is electrically connected to the at least one of the plurality of bonding pads and the conductive layer through a conductive adhesive layer.
Son teaches where a flexible printed circuit board is adhered to an electrode pad using a conductive adhesive (Paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flexible circuit board is electrically connected to the at least one of the plurality of bonding pads and the conductive layer through a conductive adhesive layer because a conductive adhesive is known to adhere a flexible circuit board to an electrode pad (Son Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park, Hyun and Son teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park further teaches a plurality of light emitting units (Item PX) disposed on the substrate.
Park does not explicitly teach a circuit board, where the circuit board is electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting units through the flexible circuit board.
Fig. 2 of Hyun further teaches a plurality of light emitting units disposed on the substrate, and a circuit board, where the circuit board is electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting units through the flexible circuit board (Paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a circuit board, where the circuit board is electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting units through the flexible circuit board because this allows the circuit board to flex when the display flexes while still being electrically connected so that the light emitting elements can be controlled (Hyun Paragraph 0066).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Hyun et al. (US 2022/0291782) hereinafter “Hyun” and Son et al. (US 2023/0297202) hereinafter “Son” and in further view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0285598) hereinafter “Lee3”.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park, Hyun and Son teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except an adhesive layer disposed on the flexible circuit board, wherein a part of the adhesive layer is in contact with the insulating layer.
Lee3 teaches where an adhesive layer connects a display panel and a circuit board, where the adhesive layer is in contact with an insulating layer on the display panel (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer disposed on the flexible circuit board, wherein a part of the adhesive layer is in contact with the insulating layer because the adhesive layer adheres the flexible circuit board with the display panel by making contact with the insulating layer (Lee3 Paragraph 0008).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0028962) hereinafter “Park” in view of Hyun et al. (US 2022/0291782) hereinafter “Hyun” and Son et al. (US 2023/0297202) hereinafter “Son” and in further view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0231110) hereinafter “Cho”.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park, Hyun and Son teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except another adhesive layer disposed on the flexible circuit board, where a part of the another adhesive layer is in contact with a side surface of the substrate.
Fig. 6 of Cho teaches where an adhesive (Item DF) that is disposed on a circuit board (Item 310) is also in contact with a side (top) surface of a substrate (Top portion of Item 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have another adhesive layer disposed on the flexible circuit board, where a part of the another adhesive layer is in contact with a side surface of the substrate because the another adhesive layer further adheres the flexible circuit board to the display panel (Cho Paragraph 0110).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) utilizing Lee have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an alternate interpretation of Lee.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 with regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 15 utilizing Park and claim 17 utilizing Lee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that Park does not read on the claim language as the bonding pad of Park does not cover and contact the sidewall of the signal line. The Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive as the claim language does not require the bonding pad to contact the sidewall of the signal line. Instead, the claim language requires that the bonding pads cover a sidewall of the one of the plurality of branch portions. As the Examiner has demonstrated in the rejection of claim 1 above, the bonding pad of Park does cover the sidewall of the branch portion in a vertical direction. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance on Park to read on amended claim 1.
With regard to the Applicant’s arguments in relation to claim 15 and the Cho reference, the Applicant argues that the Cho reference does not read on the language of the claim as the adhesive is on a top surface and not on a side surface. The Examiner argues that the top surface on a layer/object is a side surface of that layer/object. As an example if you ask how many sides a cube has, one would answer that a cube has 6 sides. If that cube were then placed on a surface, just because it is on the surface does not mean that the side surface that is on the top of the cube is no longer a side surface. Thus, the top side surface is a side surface. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive and maintains the reliance on Cho.
With regard to the Applicant’s arguments in relation to claim 17 and the Lee reference, the Applicant argues that the Lee reference does not read on the language of the claim as the semiconductor layer is not disposed between the substrate and the first electrode. The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive as the claim language does not require that the semiconductor layer is between the substrate and the first electrode bit instead merely requires that the semiconductor layer is disposed on the substrate and the conductive layer is disposed on the semiconductor layer. The claim language has no additional language with respect to orientation of the layers relative to each other. Further, the term “on” allows for additional layers to be present in between two respective layers. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicants arguments persuasive and maintains the rejection of claim 17 based on the disclosure in Lee.
Conclusion
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights