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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0365147) in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0366379).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a display device comprising: a display panel (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 57-59, ¶ 67-68);
and an input sensor on the display panel (figs. 1-3, ¶ 69, ¶ 85-93),
wherein the input sensor comprises: a first insulating layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 98-106, first insulating layer 221);
a sensing electrode (figs. 3-5, ¶ 85-93, sensing electrodes SE);
and a signal line electrically connected to the sensing electrode and under the first insulating layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 98-106, sensing line SL2),
wherein the signal line comprises: a first metal layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 97-106, sensing line SL2; SL2 may include same material as bridge portions, e.g., aluminum);
and wherein the sensing electrode comprises: a sensing pattern on the first insulating layer, the sensing pattern comprising indium tin oxide (ITO) (figs. 3-5, ¶ 85, ¶ 91-99, sensing electrodes may include ITO);
and a bridge pattern under the first insulating layer and electrically connected to the sensing pattern (figs. 3-5, ¶ 90-99, e.g., BP2).
Yang fails to disclose wherein the signal line comprises: a first metal layer comprising an aluminum-neodymium alloy (AlNd); and a second metal layer on the first metal layer, the second metal layer comprising a molybdenum-niobium alloy (MoNb), the bridge pattern comprising the molybdenum-niobium alloy (MoNb).
Xu teaches wherein the signal line comprises: a first metal layer comprising an aluminum-neodymium alloy (AlNd); and a second metal layer on the first metal layer, the second metal layer comprising a molybdenum-niobium alloy (MoNb) (¶ 94, sense lines, data lines, bridge lines, etc. may be a multilayer metal, AlNd and MoNb disclosed),
the bridge pattern comprising the molybdenum-niobium alloy (MoNb) (¶ 94, sense lines, data lines, bridge lines, etc. may be a multilayer metal, AlNd and MoNb disclosed).
Yang and Xu are both directed to OLED display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the device of Xu since such a modification provides the metal layers may be an alloy containing a combination of well-known metals (Xu, ¶ 94) and may simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of masks (Xu, ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses wherein the input sensor further comprises a second insulating layer covering the sensing pattern and on the first insulating layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 98-106, second insulating layer 222 on first sensing layer 221).
Xu further teaches wherein the second insulating layer comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxynitride (¶ 93, insulating layer may be silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxynitride).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses wherein the bridge pattern and the first metal layer are on the same insulating layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 97-106).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the sensing pattern and the bridge pattern define an ohmic contact through a contact hole defined in the first insulating layer (figs. 3-5, ¶ 97-106).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, and the sensing electrode overlaps a corresponding light emitting element among the plurality of light emitting elements (figs. 1-4, ¶ 65-69).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0335920).
Regarding claim 5, Xu further teaches the signal line has a two-layer structure (¶ 94, sense lines, data lines, bridge lines, etc. may be a multilayer metal, AlNd and MoNb disclosed).
Yang in view of Xu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bridge pattern has a single-layer structure.
Hong teaches wherein the bridge pattern has a single-layer structure (¶ 132, bridge pattern may be a single layer or multi-layer).
Yang in view of Xu and Hong are both directed to OLED display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang in view of Xu with the device of Hong since such a modification provides the bridge pattern may be a single layer or multi-layer and made of well-known metals (Hong, ¶ 132).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyon et al. (US 2012/0092273).
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Xu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second metal layer covers a side surface and an upper surface of the first metal layer.
Lyon teaches wherein the second metal layer covers a side surface and an upper surface of the first metal layer (fig. 9C, ¶ 40, multi-layer stackup with an upper layer partially covering the sides of a lower layer disclosed).
Yang in view of Xu and Lyon are both directed to display devices with border traces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang in view of Xu with the device of Lyon since such a modification provides the thickness and material makeup of the conductive traces can be varied to meet the electrical requirements of the device (Lyon, ¶ 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “Xu does not teach the specific two-layer signal line recited in claim 1” and “does not disclose that they can have a stacked structure of AlNd/MoNb” (Remarks, p. 12). Examiner disagrees. As cited above, ¶ 94 of Xu explicitly teaches both aluminum neodymium alloy (AlNd) and molybdenum niobium alloy (MoNb) and further teaches that the conductors may be “multilayer metal”. Though Xu lists an example of multilayer metal as Mo/Cu/Mo, this is merely one example, and Examiner notes that the individual metals in this example are taken directly from the previously listed metals in this paragraph of Xu. Again, this list also explicitly contains both AlNd and MoNb. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Xu teaches the limitations as claimed.
Further, Examiner notes that Yang discloses multilayer conductors, as ¶ 97 of Yang states that bridge portions “may be a multi-layered structure” and ¶ 105 of Yang states that SL2 “may be formed by the same process … and may include a same material” as the bridge portions. The rejection of claim 1 is based upon the combination of Yang and Xu, and thus Applicant’s piecemeal analysis is not persuasive.
Additionally, Examiner notes that ¶ 94 of Xu explicitly recognizes a design need for conductive materials (e.g., an alloy) for forming conductors in a display device and identifies a finite number of predictable potential solutions (numerous conductors listed and a multilayer example provided) to this need for conductive materials. Thus Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of the possible combinations disclosed or implied in Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, Examiner considers the multilayer structure of the claims ‘obvious to try’ in view of Yang and Xu (see MPEP 2143).
Applicant further argues “Xu does not provide for a bridge pattern of a sensing electrode” because while “they may share the same terminology … they refer to entirely different components” and therefore “there is no reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the features of Xu with Yang” (Remarks, pp. 12-14). Examiner disagrees. Bridges in both Yang and Xu are for connecting conductive lines within a display (i.e., ‘bridging’ a gap between conductors) and thus Applicant’s assertion regarding “entirely different components” is misplaced. In other words, the “share the same terminology” because they perform the same function, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand. Further, Examiner has provided an explicit rationale for the combining of Yang in Xu (see above rejection of claim 1), contrary to Applicant’s assertion that “there is no reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the features of Xu with Yang”.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “a broad genus of possible compounds” (Remarks, p. 13), are not germane. Examiner relies on the specific teaching of alloys as well as the use of multilayer metals as discussed in ¶ 94 of Xu to reject the claim. Examiner is not relying upon a broad chemical compound or any generic chemical formula, but rather alloys that are explicitly disclosed in the reference that can be used for conductive lines in a display.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that the bridge pattern of Hong “is a connection electrode configuration of a pixel circuit and thus does not correspond to the claimed embodiment of claim 12” (Remarks, p. 15). As discussed above, this argument is not persuasive, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the use of bridging electrodes to connect conductors within display circuitry. Further, such piecemeal analysis of the references again ignores the explicit disclosure of Yang showing bridge patterns for connecting sensing electrodes in a touch-sensitive display (e.g., see rejection of claim 1 above).
The rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights