DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 29, 35, and 41 have been considered but are moot in view of new/different grounds of rejections as set forth below in this Office Action.
Applicant's additional arguments for claims 1 and 45 filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by Kang, Applicant argues that Kang teaches the total number of the openings is higher than 25% of the total number of the pixel electrode sets in an entirety of the display device since the percentage in Fig. 9 is about 28.6% (Remarks, pages 2-3). However, this is not found persuasive since Fig. 9 rather shows 49 pixels total, not 42 pixels as Applicant alleges. As such, the percentage is 12/49 x 100% = about 24.5%, which reads on the claimed limitation of “being 25% or less”.
In response to the rejection of claim 45 under 35 USC 103 by Kang, Applicant argues that the resistance formula is not specified with sufficient details/facts. Applicant further argues that a generic resistance formula would not teach one skilled in the art what a suitable IR-drop would be (Remarks, pages 7-9). However, this is not found persuasive since claim 45 merely recites “a resistance of one of the auxiliary voltage lines from one end to an opposite end of the display device being in a range of about 0.003Ω to about 0.4Ω” without further specifying in the claim how the claimed resistance value would be obtained. Then, one skilled in the art would utilize a readily known resistance formula (i.e., R = pL/A, wherein R = resistance, p = resistivity of a material, L = length, and A = area = width(W) x thickness(t)) for obtaining the resistance value (the resistance formula is added in the rejection of claim 45 as set forth below for clarification purpose). In other words, since Kang teaches a material choice for auxiliary voltage line (170) to be copper, which has p = about 1.68x10-8 Ωm as a material property, one skilled in the art can further adjust/choose a length, a width, and a thickness of the auxiliary voltage line (170) to determine the resistance value in a range of about 0.003Ω to about 0.4Ω as claimed. For example, if t=100nm, L=100nm, and W=420nm are chosen by one skilled in the art, R = 1.68x10-8 x (100 x10-9 / (100 x10-9 x 420 x10-9)) = 0.04 Ω, which would read on the claimed limitation. As such, discovering an optimum or workable ranges for the length, the width, and the thickness for the auxiliary voltage line (170) would involve only routine skill in the art based on the resistance formula as discussed above. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, if the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not performed different than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device: In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 21-22, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2023/0189598 A1; hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (110) (Figs. 3-4 and paragraph 79); a plurality of common voltage lines (170) on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-70); a plurality of connection electrodes (195) on the plurality of common voltage lines, at least one of the plurality of connection electrodes being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of common voltage lines (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-77 and 93-94); a plurality of pixel electrode sets (191 of ED for PX) spaced from the plurality of connection electrodes, each of the pixel electrode sets comprising a first pixel electrode (191a for PX1), a second pixel electrode (191b for PX2), and a third pixel electrode (191c for PX3) to realize a full color pixel (various colors) (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 65-68 and 95-97); an emission layer (370 of ED) on the plurality of connection electrodes and the plurality of pixel electrode sets, the emission layer having a plurality of openings (1370), each of the plurality of openings corresponding to a different respective one of the plurality of connection electrodes (Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 102-106), a total number of the openings being 25% or less of a total number of the pixel electrode sets in an entirety of the display device ((1) with “an entirety of the display device” as shown in Fig. 9, a total number of 1370 (i.e., 12) is less than a total number of pixels (i.e., 49), resulting 12/49 x 100% = about 24.5% or (2) with “an entirety of the display device” as shown in Fig. 12, a percentage of a total number of 1370 over a total number of pixels would be less than 24.5% in Fig. 9 due to a size increase of D1d/D1e/D1f compared to D1c size [underlying for clarity]) (Figs. 9 and 12 and paragraphs 123-129 and 143-144); and a common electrode (270 of ED) on the emission layer, and electrically connected to the connection electrodes through the plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 107-113).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches wherein the plurality of openings comprises laser drilled holes (Fig. 11 and paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 6, Kang teaches wherein the plurality of pixel electrode sets comprises a plurality of groups of pixel electrode sets (based on Fig. 9, two groups of 9 pixels in D1c is considered as “a plurality of groups of pixel electrode sets”), each of the plurality of groups of pixel electrode sets comprising a plurality of subgroups of pixel electrode sets (from each of 9 pixels in D1c in Fig. 9, 3 subgroups of 3 pixels in a y-direction is considered as “a plurality of subgroups of pixel electrode sets”), and wherein only one of the plurality of subgroups in one of the plurality of groups has corresponding ones of the openings (only one of the 3 subgroups has one 1370 as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches wherein the subgroups in the plurality of groups of pixel electrode sets having corresponding ones of the openings define hole-forming areas (an area where 1370 is formed), and wherein a width of one of the hole-forming areas is equal to a distance between two nearest ones of the hole-forming areas (for example, nearest 1370 across a x-direction) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches wherein a ratio between a total number of pixel electrode sets and a total number of openings in the one of the plurality of subgroups is in a range of 1 to 64 (a ratio of a number of pixels in the one of the plurality of subgroups (i.e., 3) and a number of 1370 in the subgroups defined in claim 6 is 1) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches wherein the plurality of groups of pixel electrode sets are arranged in a matrix (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches wherein the plurality of subgroups of the pixel electrode sets in each of the plurality of groups are arranged in a matrix (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Kang teaches wherein a ratio between the total number of the pixel electrode sets and the total number of the openings is in a range of 4 to 5,184 (a ratio of the number of pixel electrodes and the number of 1370 in the portion of 1Dc is 9) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Kang teaches wherein a ratio between the total number of the openings and the total number of the pixel electrode sets is in a range of 1/144 to 1/9 (a ratio of the number of 1370 and the number of pixel electrodes in the portion of 1Dc is 1/9) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Kang teaches wherein a thickness of the common electrode is in a range of about 40 Å to about 200 Å (paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 22, Kang teaches wherein a thickness of the common electrode is in a range of about 50 Å to about 140 Å (paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 26, Kang teaches where the common electrode has a sheet resistance of less than about 32Ω/□ (considering 270 formed of silver Ag, which has resistivity value of 1.59 E-8 Ωm, with a thickness of about 150 angstroms (=1.5 E-8 m), 1.59/1.5 = about 1.06 Ω) (paragraphs 110-111).
Regarding claim 28, Kang teaches wherein one of the common voltage lines comprises a plurality of layers of metals (paragraphs 86 and 91).
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 3-5, 8, 12, 15-20, 23-25, 27, 29-34, and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang.
Regarding claims 3-4, 8, and 12, Kang does not explicitly teach a total number of the openings as claimed (claims 3-4), a number of the plurality of subgroups in one of the groups of pixel electrode sets as claimed (claim 8), a total number of the openings for a 65-inch display panel as claimed (claim 12). However, it would have been obvious to adjust/modify the number of openings to a desired number, including the claimed number, by routine experimentation for obtaining the display device having reduced display image deviation due voltage drop of the common voltage from Kang (paragraph 28).
Regarding claims 5, 15-20, and 27, Kang does not explicitly teach the claimed distance between nearest ones of the openings in numerical values while Kang teaches that the distance between two adjacent openings (claim 5) for connection 1370 may vary depending on the position of the plurality of openings for connection 1370 (paragraph 132). Kang also does not explicitly teach dimensions of the openings as claimed (claims 15-19) and its contact resistance of the opening (claim 20) and the resistance of the common electrode between both ends (claim 27). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for adjusting the dimensions of the openings and the dimensions of the common electrode by routine skill in the art for obtaining optimum or workable ranges: It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 23-25, while Kang does not explicitly teach the common electrode (270) comprising Yb Ag:Mg (paragraph 110) (claim 23) and its sheet resistance (claim 24), which is the result of the material over a thickness (claim 25), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilized Yb Ag:Mg as a readily available conductive material choice known in the art with its resistivity for the common electrode (270) having a thickness less than 150 angstroms for obtaining the desired conductivity.
Regarding claim 29, Kang teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (110) (Figs. 3-4 and paragraph 79); a plurality of common voltage lines (170) on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-70); a plurality of connection electrodes (195) on the plurality of common voltage lines, at least one of the plurality of connection electrodes being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of common voltage lines (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-77 and 93-94); a plurality of pixel electrode sets (191 of ED for PX) spaced from the plurality of connection electrodes, each of the pixel electrode sets comprising a first pixel electrode (191a for PX1), a second pixel electrode (191b for PX2), and a third pixel electrode (191c for PX3) to realize a full color pixel (various colors) (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 65-68 and 95-97); an emission layer (370 of ED) on the plurality of connection electrodes and the plurality of pixel electrode sets, the emission layer having a plurality of openings (1370) (Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 102-106); and a common electrode (270 of ED) on the emission layer, and electrically connected to the connection electrodes through the plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 107-113).
Kang does not explicitly teach 1) an IR-drop less than or equal to about 0.80 volts and 2) wherein a resistance through one of the plurality of openings is less than or equal to 1000 ohms, and wherein a resistance of one of the common voltage lines is less than or equal to 0.2 ohms.
Regarding 1) an IR-drop less than or equal to about 0.80 volts, Kang teaches each and every limitation of the display device structurally and compositionally identical to that of claim 27. As such, claimed property/function for the display device (i.e., an IR-drop value of the display device less than or equal to about 0.80 volts) is presumed to be at least obvious for obtaining the display device having reduced display image deviation due voltage drop of the common voltage from Kang (paragraph 28): Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding 2) wherein a resistance through one of the plurality of openings is less than or equal to 1000 ohms, and wherein a resistance of one of the common voltage lines is less than or equal to 0.2 ohms, Kang teaches a material choice for the common voltage lines (for example, copper (Cu) has a resistivity about 1.68x10-8 Ωm as a material property) (paragraphs 86 and 91). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the common voltage lines (i.e., a width, a length, and a thickness for 170) for obtaining a resistance value using the general resistance formula (i.e., R = pL/A, wherein R = resistance, p = resistivity Cu (i.e., about 1.68x10-8 Ωm), L = length, and A = area = width(W) x thickness(t)) and to adjust the opening area for obtaining a contact resistance value using the general contact resistance formula (i.e., Rc= p/A, Rc= contact resistance, p = resistivity of the contact material and A = area of the opening = length(L) x width(W) of the opening) as a routine skill in the art for obtaining optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions and the opening area, resulting optimum or workable ranges of the resistance of the common voltage line and the contact resistance through the opening. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 30-34, similar to the rejection of claim 29 for the voltage drop, while Kang does not explicitly teach the voltage drops for the display device as claimed in claims 30-34, claimed property/function for the display device (i.e., IR-drop of the display device in numerical values in claims 30-34) is presumed to be at least obvious for obtaining the display device having reduced display image deviation due voltage drop of the common voltage from Kang (paragraph 28 and see the rejection of claim 29 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 41, Kim teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (110) (Figs. 3-4 and paragraph 79); a plurality of common voltage lines (170) on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-70); a plurality of connection electrodes (195) on the plurality of common voltage lines, at least one of the plurality of connection electrodes being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of common voltage lines (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-77 and 93-94); a plurality of pixel electrode sets (191 of ED for PX) spaced from the plurality of connection electrodes, each of the pixel electrode sets comprising a first pixel electrode (191a for PX1), a second pixel electrode (191b for PX2), and a third pixel electrode (191c for PX3) to realize a full color pixel (various colors) (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 65-68 and 95-97); an emission layer (370 of ED) on the plurality of connection electrodes and the plurality of pixel electrode sets, the emission layer having a plurality of openings (1370) (Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 102-106); and a common electrode (270 of ED) on the emission layer, and electrically connected to the connection electrodes through the plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 107-113), the common electrode having a thickness in a range of about 60 Å to about 140 Å (about 150 angstroms or less) (paragraph 111).
Kang does not explicitly teach that a resistance through one of the plurality of openings is less than or equal to 1000 ohms, and wherein a resistance of one of the common voltage lines is less than or equal to 0.2 ohms. However, Kang teaches a material choice for the common voltage lines (for example, copper (Cu) has a resistivity about 1.68x10-8 Ωm as a material property) (paragraphs 86 and 91). Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the common voltage lines (i.e., a width, a length, and a thickness for 170) for obtaining a resistance value using the general resistance formula (i.e., R = pL/A, wherein R = resistance, p = resistivity Cu (i.e., about 1.68x10-8 Ωm), L = length, and A = area = width(W) x thickness(t)) and to adjust the opening area for obtaining a contact resistance value using the general contact resistance formula (i.e., Rc= p/A, Rc= contact resistance, p = resistivity of the contact material and A = area of the opening = length(L) x width(W) of the opening) as a routine skill in the art for obtaining optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions and the opening area, resulting optimum or workable ranges of the resistance of the common voltage line and the contact resistance through the opening. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 42, Kim teaches wherein a thickness of the common electrode is in a range of about 70 Å to about 140 Å (for example, about 100 angstroms) (paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 43, Kim teaches wherein the common electrode has a sheet resistance of about 9.7Ω/□ to about 50Ω/□ (considering 270 formed of silver Ag, which has resistivity value of 1.59 E-8 Ωm, with a thickness of about 10 angstroms (=0.1 E-8 m), 1.59/0.1 = about 15 Ω) (paragraphs 110-111).
Regarding claim 44, Kim teaches where the common electrode has a sheet resistance of less than about 32Ω/□ (considering 270 formed of silver Ag, which has resistivity value of 1.59 E-8 Ωm, with a thickness of about 150 angstroms (=1.5 E-8 m), 1.59/1.5 = about 1.06 Ω) (paragraphs 110-111).
Regarding claim 45, Kang teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (110) (Figs. 3-4 and paragraph 79); a plurality of auxiliary voltage lines (170) on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-70); a plurality of connection electrodes (195) on the plurality of auxiliary voltage lines, at least one of the plurality of connection electrodes being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of auxiliary voltage lines (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-77 and 93-94); a plurality of pixel electrode sets (191 of ED for PX) spaced from the plurality of connection electrodes, each of the pixel electrode sets comprising a first pixel electrode (191a for PX1), a second pixel electrode (191b for PX2), and a third pixel electrode (191c for PX3) to realize a full color pixel (various colors) (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 65-68 and 95-97); an emission layer (370 of ED) on the plurality of connection electrodes and the plurality of pixel electrode sets, the emission layer having a plurality of openings (1370) (Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 102-106); and a common electrode (270 of ED) on the emission layer, and electrically connected to the plurality of connection electrodes through the plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 107-113).
Kang does not explicitly teach a resistance of one of the auxiliary voltage lines (170) from one end to an opposite end of the display device being in a range of about 0.003Ω to about 0.4Ω since Kang does not teach dimensions for the auxiliary voltage lines (i.e., a width, a length, and a thickness for 170) while the material choice for the auxiliary voltage lines are known (for example, copper (Cu) has a resistivity about 1.68x10-8 Ωm as a material property) (paragraphs 86 and 91). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dimensions of the auxiliary voltage lines (i.e., a width, a length, and a thickness for 170) by a routine skill in the art for obtaining optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions, resulting optimum or workable ranges of the resistance of the auxiliary voltage lines by using a general resistance formula (i.e., R = pL/A, wherein R = resistance, p = resistivity Cu (i.e., about 1.68x10-8 Ωm), L = length, and A = area = width(W) x thickness(t)). It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 46, similar to claim 45, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for adjusting the dimensions of the auxiliary voltage lines by routine skill in the art for obtaining optimum or workable ranges of the dimensions, resulting optimum or workable ranges of the resistance of the auxiliary voltage lines.
Claims 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0157052 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 35, Kang teaches a display device comprising: a substrate (110) (Figs. 3-4 and paragraph 79); a plurality of common voltage lines (170) on the substrate (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-70); a plurality of connection electrodes (195) on the plurality of common voltage lines, at least one of the plurality of connection electrodes being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of common voltage lines (Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 69-77 and 93-94); a plurality of pixel electrode sets (191 of ED for PX) spaced from the plurality of connection electrodes, each of the pixel electrode sets comprising a first pixel electrode (191a for PX1), a second pixel electrode (191b for PX2), and a third pixel electrode (191c for PX3) to realize a full color pixel (various colors) (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 65-68 and 95-97); an emission layer (370 of ED) on the plurality of connection electrodes and the plurality of pixel electrode sets, the emission layer having a plurality of openings (1370) (Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 102-106); and a common electrode (270 of ED) on the emission layer, and electrically connected to the connection electrodes through the plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 107-113).
Kang does not explicitly teach that a largest width of one of the openings being in a range of about 1 μm to less than 5 μm or in a range of greater than 10 μm to about 30 μm. Kim teaches a display device (DM having DP) comprising: an emission layer (OL), the emission layer having a plurality of openings (O-2 of OL having HA) (Figs. 1B, 5-6, and 10B and paragraphs 66, 209, and 284-286), wherein a largest width of one of the openings being in in a range of about 1 μm to less than 5 μm or in a range of greater than 10 μm to about 30 μm (in a range of about 5 μm to 10 μm would read on the claimed limitation. For example, about 5 μm from Kim such as 4.9 μm would read on the limitation reciting “in a range of about 1 μm to less than 5 μm”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kang with that of Kim in order to readily adjust the width of the openings as a routine skill in the art to provide an electrical connection between a common electrode (CE) and a connection electrode (SE).
Regarding claim 36, Kang teaches wherein the plurality of openings comprises laser drilled holes (Fig. 11 and paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 37, Kim teaches wherein the largest width of the one of the openings is at least about 3 μm (paragraphs 209 and 284-286, about 5 μm).
Regarding claim 38, Kim teaches wherein the largest width of the one of the openings is in a range of about 4 μm to about 7 μm (paragraphs 209 and 284-286, about 5 μm).
Regarding claim 39, Kim teaches wherein the largest width of the one of the openings is in a range of about 4 μm to about 5 μm (paragraphs 209 and 284-286, about 5 μm).
Regarding claim 40, Kim teaches wherein the largest width of the one of the openings is in a range of about 3 μm to about 20 μm (paragraphs 209 and 284-286, about 5 μm).
Claims 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2020/0119115 A1; hereinafter “Moon”).
Regarding claim 47, Kang does not explicitly teach that the plurality of auxiliary voltage lines comprises a plurality of first common voltage lines and a plurality of backplane metal lines. Moon teaches a display device (Fig. 1 and paragraph 40), comprising an auxiliary voltage line (a combination of 125 and 131), wherein the auxiliary voltage line comprises a first common voltage line (131) and a backplane metal line (125) extending in a same direction (a y-direction) as the first common voltage line, the backplane metal line being electrically connected to a corresponding one of the first common voltage line via an opening (an opening where 131a is formed therein) in a first insulation layer (105) located therebetween so that the voltage drop in a large-area display device may be further alleviated (Figs. 6-7 and 9 and paragraphs 70 and 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kang with that of Moon so that the voltage drop in a large-area display device may be further alleviated.
Regarding claim 48, Kang in view of Moon does not explicitly teach a plurality of second common voltage lines between the plurality of first common voltage lines (170) and the plurality of connection electrodes (195). However, similar to Moon’s teaching of having additional metal line electrically connected to the common voltage line as discussed above in claim 47 for alleviating the voltage drop, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the additional metal line such as the second common voltage lines between the plurality of first common voltage lines (170) and the plurality of connection electrodes (195) for additionally alleviating the voltage drop.
Regarding claim 49, Kang does not explicitly teach that one of the plurality of auxiliary voltage lines comprises a plurality of overlapping common voltages lines spaced from each other. Moon teaches a display device (Fig. 1 and paragraph 40), comprising an auxiliary voltage line (a combination of 125 and 131), wherein the auxiliary voltage line comprises a plurality of overlapping common voltages lines (125 and 131) spaced from each other in a thickness direction (a z-direction) of the substrate, the display device further comprising an insulation layer (105) between two adjacent ones of the plurality of overlapping common voltage lines in the thickness direction, the two adjacent ones of the plurality of overlapping common voltage lines being electrically connected with each other via an opening (an opening where 131a is formed therein) in the insulation layer so that the voltage drop in a large-area display device may be further alleviated (Figs. 6-7 and 9 and paragraphs 70 and 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kang with that of Moon so that the voltage drop in a large-area display device may be further alleviated.
Regarding claim 50, Kang in view of Moon does not explicitly teach at least three overlapping common voltage lines since Moon teaches two overlapping common voltage lines (125 and 131) as discussed in claim 49. However, similar to Moon’s teaching of having additional metal line electrically connected as discussed above in claim 49 for alleviating the voltage drop, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include the additional overlapping common voltage line such as the third common voltage line for additionally alleviating the voltage drop.
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 DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights