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 § 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(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 2022/0109039) in view of Hayashi (US 2023/0307446).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon discloses a mother substrate for a display device
comprising: an insulating substrate (Fig.5, numeral 100) comprising a first main surface
and a second main surface on an opposite side of the first main surface; a conductive
shielding layer (BML) ([0103]); and first and second panel portions (portions in
(CA)) provided on the first main surface side of the insulating substrate (100) and
overlapping the shielding layer (BML), wherein each of the first panel portion and the
second panel portion comprises a display area which displays an image and a
surrounding area outside the display area ([0052]), and the shielding layer comprises: a
first shielding portion (Fig.5, BML) overlapping the first panel portion (CA); a second
shielding portion (BML) spaced apart from the first shielding portion and overlapping
the second panel portion (CA) ([0101]); and a connection portion (Fig. 7, BMLC)
provided for connecting the first shielding portion (BMLO) to the second shielding
portion (BMLO) and formed into a belt-like shape ([0139]).
Jeon does not disclose that the shielding layer is provided in the second main
surface of the insulating substrate.
Hayashi however discloses providing the shielding layer (Fig.6, numeral 6009) is provided in the second main surface of the insulating substrate (6001).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeon with Hayashi to have the shielding layer provided in the second main surface of the insulating substrate for the purpose of operating TFT with high stability (Hayashi, [0009]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Hayashi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Chu (US 2023/0244093).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong in view of Hayashi does not disclose wherein the shielding layer is formed of a transparent conductive oxide.
Chu however discloses the shielding layer formed of a transparent conductive oxide ([0014]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jeong with Chu to have the shielding layer formed of a transparent conductive oxide for the purpose of fabrication a display device with improved capability of electrostatic dissipation and preventing damage of a circuit element (Chu, [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 13-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the first panel portion and the second panel portion are arranged in a first direction, the plurality of cut lines includes a first cut line, a second cut line, a third cut line, and a fourth cut line, the first cut line, the second cut line, the third cut line, and the fourth cut line extend in a second direction crossing the first direction and are arranged in the first direction, the first panel portion is located between the first cut line and the second cut line, and the second panel portion is located between the third cut line and the fourth cut line as required by amended independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to claims 1-7 and 13-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights