Response to Amendments and Arguments
Amendments and arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and have not been found to place the application in a condition for allowance.
The applicant asserts that Park does not teach the amended features. While the Office agrees that the SL or shield layer of Park does not extend to contact the outer discharge line, the Office provides that such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date. Specifically, Kitsomboonloha clearly teaches that a shielding electrode or discharge link may be formed as a continuous layer to contact electrodes either from the top or the bottom. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to simply extend the SL layer of Park to contact the outer discharge line from a top portion as taught by Kitsomboonloha and thereby meeting all the limitations of the independent claims.
Arguments regarding claim 12 are moot because claim 12 is rejected based on an obvious combination of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha, however the applicant has only presented arguments regarding apparent deficiencies of Park. The Office respectfully maintains the obviousness rejection of claim 12 according to the teachings of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2020/0321292 A1, hereinafter Park, in view of Kitsomboonloha et al., US 11,861,110 B1, hereinafter “Kitsomboonloha”.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a display device (fig. 1, element 1, ¶ 55), comprising: a substrate (fig. 1, elements 110-181 constitute the substrate, ¶ 62); a dam positioned on a marginal portion of the substrate (fig. 6, DM2, ¶ 103 and 124); an outer discharge line positioned outside the dam (fig. 6, EP3, see fig. 6, wherein EP3 is outside the dam, also see ¶ 89 and ¶ 123); an inner discharge line positioned inside the dam (fig. 6, EP1 is positioned inside the dam DM2; note that EP2 may also be considered to be “inside” the dam); a discharge link (fig. 6, EPL and fig. 4, SL) contacting the outer discharge line and the inner discharge line (fig. 6, see EPL), and extending as a single continuous layer from the outer discharge line to the inner discharge line (EPL is a single continuous layer, see ¶ 89, 96 and 124); and a static electricity discharge circuit electrically connected with the inner discharge line (fig. 6, ¶ 89 and 126 wherein EP1 is connected to CT and VC common voltage lines which are considered to be the static electricity discharge circuit).
Park does not specifically teach a discharge link contacting the outer discharge line and the inner discharge line, and extending as a single continuous layer from the outer discharge line to the inner discharge line to cover all of a top surface of the dam. Note, however, that SL layer of Park covers all of a top surface of the dam (see figs. 4 and 6). Further, Park teaches that both SL and EPL are connected to the common electrode voltage VC, and function similarly as to shield or discharge any static voltage.
Kitsomboonloha, however, clearly teaches that the discharge link (fig. 4D, element 331, col. 8, lines 53-63) contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line to cover the outer discharge line (col. 15, lines 15-18 wherein element 330 is connected to ground voltage to discharge noise and or static electricity). Kitsomboonloha further teaches that the discharge link (331) may be provided on either side of the electrodes (figs. 4C and 4D, see configuration of elements 330 and 331).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha. Park clearly teaches connecting an outer ground electrode to the ground potential using a linking wire such as EPL. Kitsomboonloha teaches a similar configuration as that of Park in fig. 4C and further teaches a modified version in fig. 4D wherein the linking wire is disposed to cover the ground electrodes. As such, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to either connect EPL of Park similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha in order to connect EP3 to EPL, or simply extend the SL portion of the linking wire to cover EP3 similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha, while expecting to achieve the same result as providing EP3 with the required ground voltage in order to discharge static or noise voltages. Note that according to either modification, EPL or SL layer would have been a single continuous layer.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches a first auxiliary discharge line overlapping with the dam (fig. 6, portion of EPL inside the dam); and a second auxiliary discharge line overlapping with the dam (fig. 6, portion of EP2 inside the through hole, ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches that the first auxiliary discharge line is positioned on the substrate, wherein the second auxiliary discharge line is positioned on the first auxiliary discharge line and contacts the first auxiliary discharge line (see fig. 6), and wherein the discharge link is positioned on the second auxiliary discharge line and contacts the second auxiliary discharge line (fig. 6, SL portion of the discharge link is positioned on the second auxiliary discharge line and EPL portion of the discharge link contacts the second auxiliary discharge line).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches that the outer discharge line has a same material layer as the inner discharge line (¶ 123).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches that the first auxiliary discharge line has a same material layer as the static electricity discharge circuit (fig. 6, first auxiliary discharge line (portion of EPL at the dam section) and CT are portions of the same EPL layer; ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches that the second auxiliary discharge line has a same material layer as the inner discharge line (fig. 6, EP1 and EP2 and the corresponding contact holes constituting the second auxiliary discharge line are the same material layer; ¶ 123).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches that the second auxiliary discharge line has a same material layer as the outer discharge line (¶ 123).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches that the discharge link includes a transparent conductive material (fig. 6; ¶ 87, 89, 126; EPL is on the same layer as CT which is of a transparent material).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches that the first auxiliary discharge line, the second auxiliary discharge line, and the discharge link are positioned to overlap with each other in the dam (fig. 6, portion of EPL within the dam, through hole portion of EP1/EP2 (first aux discharge line), and EP1/EP2 electrodes (second aux discharge line) overlap with each other in the dam).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches a display device (fig. 1, element 1, ¶ 55), comprising: a substrate (fig. 1, element 110, ¶ 62) including an active area where a plurality of subpixels are disposed (fig. 1, area DA, ¶ 55-56), and a non-active area positioned outside the active area and surrounding the active area (fig. 1, area NA, ¶ 55-56); an outer discharge line positioned in the non-active area of the substrate (fig. 1, EP3, ¶ 67); an inner discharge line positioned in the non-active area of the substrate and inside the outer discharge line (fig. 1, EP1, ¶ 67); a discharge link positioned adjacent to the outer discharge line and extending perpendicular to the outer discharge line, and contacting the inner discharge line (fig. 1, EPL, ¶ 68); and a static electricity discharge circuit electrically connected with the inner discharge line (fig. 6, see connection of EPL to CT/VC considered to be such a discharge circuit, ¶ 126), wherein the discharge link contacts respective portions of a top surface of the substrate that are adjacent to the side surfaces of the outer discharge line (fig. 1, see EPL extending outside the dam region to meet such a configuration).
Park does not teach that the discharge link contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line in a cross-sectional view of the display device to cover the outer discharge line.
Kitsomboonloha teaches that the discharge link (fig. 4D, element 331, col. 8, lines 53-63) contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line in a cross-sectional view of the display device to cover the outer discharge line (col. 15, lines 15-18 wherein element 330 is connected to ground voltage to discharge noise and or static electricity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha. Park clearly teaches connecting an outer ground electrode to the ground potential using a linking wire such as EPL. Kitsomboonloha teaches a similar configuration as that of Park in fig. 4C and further teaches a modified version in fig. 4D wherein the linking wire is disposed to cover the ground electrodes. As such, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to either connect EPL of Park similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha in order to connect EP3 to EPL, or simply extend the SL portion of the linking wire to cover EP3 similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha, while expecting to achieve the same result as providing EP3 with the required ground voltage in order to discharge static or noise voltages.
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches a dam positioned in the non-active area of the substrate and between the outer discharge line and the inner discharge line (fig. 6, see DM2, ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches that the static electricity discharge circuit is positioned on a first side surface of the substrate (fig. 6, VC/CT is disposed on a first side surface of the substrate), the outer discharge line is three lines respectively positioned adjacent to second, third and fourth side surfaces of the substrate (fig. 1, EP3, see the three lines of EP3 such as one horizontal and two vertical lines at the top and the sides respectively); and the inner discharge line is one continuous line positioned on the second, third and fourth side surfaces of the substrate (fig. 1, EP1 is one continuous line positioned at the top and sides of the substrate).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches that the outer discharge line contacts the discharge link (fig. 6, see connection of EP3 and EPL, ¶ 126).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches that the discharge link contacts a portion of a top surface of the substrate (fig. 6, see EPL).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches an insulating layer (fig. 6, L11, ¶ 107) that is disposed between the inner discharge line and the discharge link in a cross-sectional view and includes a contact hole, wherein the discharge link extends along a side of the contact hole and contacts the inner discharge line at a bottom of the contact hole (see fig. 6, connection of EPL and EP1 at the bottom of the hole formed within L11).
Regarding claim 19, Park does not specifically teach that the discharge link contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line.
Kitsomboonloha teaches that the discharge link (fig. 4D, element 331, col. 8, lines 53-63) contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line (col. 15, lines 15-18 wherein element 330 is connected to ground voltage to discharge noise and or static electricity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha. Park clearly teaches connecting an outer ground electrode to the ground potential using a linking wire such as EPL. Kitsomboonloha teaches a similar configuration as that of Park in fig. 4C and further teaches a modified version in fig. 4D wherein the linking wire is disposed to cover the ground electrodes. As such, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to either connect EPL of Park similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha in order to connect EP3 to EPL, or simply extend the SL portion of the linking wire to cover EP3 similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha, while expecting to achieve the same result as providing EP3 with the required ground voltage in order to discharge static or noise voltages.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches that the discharge link extends along at least a partial side surface and at least a partial top surface of the dam (fig. 6, see SL line as labeled in fig. 4 which is shorted to the EPL line and common voltage line VC), and a partial top surface of the substrate (fig. 6, see EPL).
Park does not teach that the discharge link contacts at least a partial side surface and a top surface of the outer discharge line.
Kitsomboonloha teaches that the discharge link (fig. 4D, element 331, col. 8, lines 53-63) contacts both side surfaces and a top surface of the outer discharge line (col. 15, lines 15-18 wherein element 330 is connected to ground voltage to discharge noise and or static electricity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park in view of Kitsomboonloha. Park clearly teaches connecting an outer ground electrode to the ground potential using a linking wire such as EPL. Kitsomboonloha teaches a similar configuration as that of Park in fig. 4C and further teaches a modified version in fig. 4D wherein the linking wire is disposed to cover the ground electrodes. As such, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to either connect EPL of Park similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha in order to connect EP3 to EPL, or simply extend the SL portion of the linking wire to cover EP3 similar to fig. 4D of Kitsomboonloha, while expecting to achieve the same result as providing EP3 with the required ground voltage in order to discharge static or noise voltages.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Kitsomboonloha, as applied above, and further in view of Liu et al., US 2007/0131989 A1, hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Park and Kitsomboonloha do not teach that the outer discharge line has a dashed line shape.
Liu, however, teaches similar outer discharge lines (fig. 6A, element 260, ¶ 42) having a dashed line shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park, Kitsomboonloha and Liu. The references teach electrode configurations for electrostatic discharge (ESD) in display devices. Park teaches in ¶ 68 that EPL may be provided in multiple locations (left and right edge of display) to connect the ESD electrodes (EP1-EP3). Liu teaches an electrode 260 similar to EP3 of Park for ESD. As such, one would have been motivated to provide the EP3 electrode of Park in a dashed line shape while extending the EPL electrode at each EP3 location expecting the same result of discharging the electrostatic electricity. Liu teaches in ¶ 42 that as long as there is an electrical connection between the extending electrodes and the ESD electrodes, electrostatic electricity is discharged and a damage to the display is minimized, motivating one of ordinary skill to make such a modification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Kitsomboonloha, as applied above, and further in view of Cheng, US 2018/0108649 A1, hereinafter “Cheng”.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches a driving circuit positioned on a first side surface of the substrate (fig. 1, ¶ 62, data driver).
Park and Kitsomboonloha do not specifically teach a data line area extending in a first direction; and a data line link area positioned between the driving circuit and the data line area, wherein the static electricity discharge circuit is positioned between the data line link area and the data line area.
Cheng, however, teaches a data line area extending in a first direction (fig. 3, see the data lines extending vertically from element 20 into the display area); and a data line link area positioned between the driving circuit and the data line area (area of data lines immediately adjacent to the data driving unit 121), wherein the static electricity discharge circuit is positioned between the data line link area and the data line area (fig. 3, see the position of element 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Park, Kitsomboonloha and Cheng. The references teach display devices for reducing the effects of static charges. Cheng further teaches circuitry and the position of such a circuit for releasing the static charges to the common voltage line. As such, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to incorporate the static charge shielding unit of Cheng and release the static electricity in the common electrode “so as to reduce the probability of the accumulate of the static charges, thereby to reduce the probability of the electrostatic breakdown.” (see ¶ 45)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at (571) 272-7764. 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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621