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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of figures 7 and 8 in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicants believes that a search and examination of the entire claim set can be made without serious burden”. Applicants continue to argue that “At least Species I-IV are closely related to Species V, so that a single search can cover all Groups without serious burden. Further, at least claim 1 is believed to be generic to the identified species including Species VI.
This is not found persuasive because the search and examination of two separate and distinct inventions does create a serious burden on the examiner.
Furthermore, even if “Species I-IV are closely related to Species V”, this does not mean that a single search can cover all Groups without serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (2020/0321732)Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text (see specifically paragraph [0031]) a pin binding structure, comprising:
at least one first pin group 20a, wherein each first pin group comprises a plurality of first pins 212 (see figure 3) distributed at intervals along a first direction, each first pin is formed in a bent line structure with a first opening, and first openings of the plurality of first pins in the first pin group have the same orientation;
at least one second pin group 20b, wherein each second pin group comprises a plurality of second pins distributed at intervals along the first direction, each second pin is formed in a bent line structure with a second opening, second openings of the plurality of second pins (another 212, see figure 3) in the second pin group have the same orientation, and the orientation of the second openings of the second pins appears to be opposite to the orientation of the first openings of the first pins,
wherein the first pin group and the second pin group are distributed along a second direction, and the plurality of first pins and the plurality of second pins respectively in the first pin group and the second pin group that are adjacent are at least partially distributed in a comb-tooth-shaped insertion manner (see figure 4).
Liu et al. do not explicitly state that the orientation of the second openings of the second pins is opposite to the orientation of the first openings of the first pins.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the orientation of the second openings of the second pins is opposite to the orientation of the first openings of the first pins in Liu et al.’s device, in order to reduce the real estate (i.e. the size) of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. teaches in figure 4 and related text that each first pin comprises a first portion and a second portion (arbitrarily chosen) arranged in sequence in the second direction and connected at a first predetermined angle, and each second pin comprises a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion arranged in sequence in the second direction and connected at a second predetermined angle.
Regarding the claimed limitations of “each first pin comprises a first portion and a second portion arranged in sequence in the second direction and connected at a first predetermined angle”, these are process limitations which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
The formation of a structure by connecting first and second portions at a first predetermined angle does not produce a structure which is different from a structure which is formed by using one structure having a predetermined angle.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. teaches in figure 4 and related text that first connecting portions (arbitrarily chosen) of the second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row are parallel to second portions of the first pins in the first pin group in the i-th row, and i is defined as any integer greater than or equal to 1.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that second connecting portions (arbitrarily chosen) of the second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row are parallel to first portions of the first pins in the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that a size of first connecting portions of the second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row is equal (chosen as such) to a size of second portions of the first pins in the first pin group in the i-th row; and a size of second connecting portions of the second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row is equal to a size of first portions of the first pins in the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row.
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that the first pin group 20a has a first fold line (being part of the bending pin 212) along the first direction, the first portion and the second portion (arbitrarily chosen) of each first pin are respectively located on two sides of the first fold line, the second pin group 20b has a second fold line along the first direction, and the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion of each second pin are respectively located on two sides of the second fold line.
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that the plurality of first pins of the first pin group in the i-th row are spaced apart from the second fold line of the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row, and the plurality of second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row are spaced apart from the first fold line of the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that the plurality of second pins in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row are spaced apart from the first fold line of the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row, and the plurality of first pins in the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row are spaced apart from the second fold line in the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row.
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that a distance between the first fold line of the first pin group in the i-th row and the second fold line of the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row is equal to a distance between the second fold line of the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row and the first fold line of the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row (since the pin groups are equally spaced from each other).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that the first pin group in the i-th row are spaced apart from the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row in the second direction, and the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row are spaced apart from the second pin group in the (i+3)-th row in the second direction.
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that a distance between the first pin group in the i-th row and the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row in the second direction is equal to a distance between the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row and the second pin group in the (i+3)-th row in the second direction.
Regarding claim 13, Liu et al. do not teach that a distance between the first pin group in the i-th row and the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row in the second direction is greater than or equal to 50 microns, and a distance between the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row and the second pin group in the (i+3)-th row in the second direction is greater than or equal to 50 microns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a distance between the first pin group in the i-th row and the first pin group in the (i+2)-th row in the second direction is greater than or equal to 50 microns, and a distance between the second pin group in the (i+1)-th row and the second pin group in the (i+3)-th row in the second direction is greater than or equal to 50 microns, in Liu et al.’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device.
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text that the plurality of first pins and the plurality of second pins respectively in the first pin group and the second pin group that are adjacent are arranged alternately in sequence in the first direction (according to the locations of the terminals 21a, 21b).
Regarding claim 15, Liu et al. do not teach that a minimum distance between the first pins and the second pins respectively in the first pin group and the second pin group that are adjacent in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns; and a minimum distance between two adjacent first pins in the first pin group in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns; and a minimum distance between two adjacent second pins in the second pin group in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a minimum distance between the first pins and the second pins respectively in the first pin group and the second pin group that are adjacent in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns; and a minimum distance between two adjacent first pins in the first pin group in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns; and a minimum distance between two adjacent second pins in the second pin group in the first direction is greater than or equal to 6 microns, in Liu et al.’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device.
Regarding claim 19, Liu et al. teach in figure 4 and related text an array substrate, comprising a first area and a second area (arbitrarily chosen), wherein the second area is distributed around the first area (arbitrarily chosen), and the second area comprises a binding area provided with a plurality of pins adopting the pin binding structure according claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Liu et al. do not teach a display panel comprising the array substrate according to claim 19. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the array substrate of claim 19 as a display panel, in Liu et al.’s device, in order to expand the device capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
2/7/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800