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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 10, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KWON et al. 20200373378.
PNG
media_image1.png
583
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
659
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-2 of Kwon discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting device E on an emission area (top surface area of E) of a device substrate (fig. 2 as whole is substrate of device – a device substrate);
a driving circuit T electrically connected to the light-emitting device, the driving circuit disposed outside the emission area;
a signal wiring 230 disposed outside the light-emitting device and the emission area; and
a connection wiring (610/650/630/GLc/GL) electrically connected between the driving circuit (GL is connected to gate electrode – see par [0062]) and the signal wiring 230,
wherein the connection wiring includes a first wiring region (as labeled by examiner above) and a second wiring region 650 (ACF is transparent) having a transmittance higher than the first wiring region (as labeled by examiner above),
wherein the second wiring region 650 of the connection wiring overlaps the emission area (see fig. 2 showing 650 overlap with E),
and wherein the first wiring region of the connection wiring is spaced apart from the emission area in a direction parallel to a surface of the device substrate.
PNG
media_image3.png
647
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, figs. 1-2 of Kwon discloses a display apparatus, comprising:
a bank insulating layer 350 on a device substrate, the bank insulating layer adjacent to an emission area (area of E) in a pixel area of the device substrate;
a light-emitting device E includes a first electrode 410, a light-emitting layer 430 and a second electrode 450 stacked on one another and overlapping the emission area of the pixel area;
a driving circuit T between the pixel area of the device substrate and the bank insulating layer, the driving circuit including at least one thin film transistor T; and
a signal wiring (as labeled by examiner above0 disposed outside the pixel area PA2, the signal wiring electrically connected to the driving circuit by a connection wiring (650/630/GLc/GL),
wherein the connection wiring includes a transparent wiring region 650 (anisotropic conductive film (ACF) 650 is transparent) overlapping with the first electrode 410,
wherein the signal wiring is spaced apart from the emission area in a direction parallel to a surface of the device substrate
wherein a transmittance of the transparent wiring region 650 is higher than a transmittance of the signal wiring 610 (this is necessary the case ACF 650 is transparent and 610 is a circuit film that is not ACF).
PNG
media_image4.png
690
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, figs. 1-2 of Kwon discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting device E including a light emission area (top surface of E) of a substrate;
a driving circuit T electrically connected to the light-emitting device; and
a connection wiring (610/650/630/GLc/GL) electrically connected to the driving circuit, the connection wiring including a first layer 650 in contact with the driving circuit and a second layer (as labeled by examiner above) on the first layer and spaced apart from the driving circuit,
wherein the driving circuit and the second layer having a lower transmittance than the first layer are spaced apart from the light emission area in a direction parallel to a surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Kwon discloses wherein at least a portion of the first layer 650 (ACF is transparent) is transparent and the second layer is opaque (610 opaque compare to 650)
Regarding claim 20, fig. 2 of Kwon discloses wherein the first layer 650 includes a first portion (right portion beyond dotted region) and a second portion (left portion overlapping with dotted portion), the second portion overlapping with the second layer and positioned further away from the driving circuit than the first portion, the first portion and the second portion having respective electrical conductivity properties different (to a degree) from one another.
Regarding claim 21, Kwon discloses wherein the driving circuit includes a driving transistor T having a semiconductor region in a same layer as the first layer of the connection wiring (the contact hole from 630 to GL is in same layer as semiconductor region.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Kong et al. 20190165065.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon discloses claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a color filter between the second wiring region of the connection wiring and the light-emitting device.
PNG
media_image5.png
408
455
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 3 of Kong discloses a similar inventor further comprising a color filter below the light-emitting device.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of Kwon further comprising a color filter between the second wiring region of the connection wiring and the light-emitting device such as taught by Kong in order to realize a color image desired.
Claims 3 -7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon discloses claim 1. Kwon does not disclose of wherein the first wiring region has a resistance lower than the second wiring region.
However, it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein the first wiring region has a resistance lower than the second wiring region in order to meet applicant design.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon does not disclose of wherein a thickness of the second wiring region is smaller than a thickness of the first wiring region.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein a thickness of the second wiring region is smaller than a thickness of the first wiring region in order to meet the applicant resistance requirement.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon discloses wherein the first wiring region includes a lower wiring layer 630 and an upper wiring layer GL on the lower wiring layer.
Kwon does not disclose wherein a resistance of the upper wiring layer is smaller than a resistance of the lower wiring layer, and wherein the second wiring region includes a same material as the lower wiring layer.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein a resistance of the upper wiring layer is smaller than a resistance of the lower wiring layer, and wherein the second wiring region includes a same material as the lower wiring layer in order to meet the applicant resistance requirement.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses wherein the upper wiring layer includes a metal material.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon does not disclose of wherein the second wiring region has a resistance lower than the lower wiring layer.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Resistance is a type of dimension.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein the second wiring region has a resistance lower than the lower wiring layer in order to meet the applicant resistance requirement.
Regarding claim 9, Kwon does not disclose of wherein a thickness of the second wiring region is same as a thickness of the lower wiring layer.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus comprising wherein a thickness of the second wiring region is same as a thickness of the lower wiring layer in order to meet the applicant resistance requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11-16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, PURVIS A. Sue 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 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights