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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 01/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 03/30/2026, in which: claims 1, 3-4, and 14 are amended; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-14 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the display device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US Publication 20210202630) in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 20190229446).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jeon teaches a display device (fig. 17), comprising:
a first substrate (100) including light-emitting elements (103) disposed over one surface thereof;
a first pad electrode (110) disposed over an outermost position of the first substrate;
a second substrate (200) bonded to an opposite surface to the one surface of the first substrate;
a second pad electrode (210) disposed over an outermost position of the second substrate;
a plurality of side wirings (401) electrically connecting the first substrate and the second substrate to each other (paragraph 0151, see also fig. 5, 410 which corresponds to 401 electrically connects 100 and 200), wherein each side wiring of the plurality of side wirings extends from the first pad electrode to the second pad electrode along outer side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate (paragraph 0626); and
a wiring protection member (fig. 17, 403) covering the plurality of side wirings.
Jeon does not teach wherein the wiring protection member includes a protective layer and a plurality of conductive particles dispersed in the protective layer.
Kim teaches wherein the wiring protection member (fig. 10, AF occupies space for wiring protection member of Kim) includes a protective layer (BR) and a plurality of conductive particles (CP) dispersed in the protective layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of and the protective layer of Kim in order to electrically connect the panel pads and the connecting pads (Kim paragraph 0110).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising a side sealing member (fig. 17, 109) covering an exposed surface of the wiring protection member.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of side wirings
Regarding dependent claim 4, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 1,
wherein each side wiring of the plurality of side wirings contacts and overlaps the first pad electrode and the second pad electrode (fig. 17).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the display device further comprises a cover member (fig. 17, 108) disposed on the side sealing member and the first substrate, and
wherein an outermost side surface of the side sealing member is aligned with an outermost side surface of the cover member in a same plane (fig. 17, side surfaces of 108 and 109 are aligned along line VL).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kim further teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the conductive particles dispersed in the protection layer include metal particles (paragraph 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of Jeon and the conductive particles of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Jeon in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 6.
Jeon in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the metal particles include indium (In) particles, however, Kim discloses the conductive particles “may be metallic particles or alloy particles in which various kinds of metal are mixed” (Kim paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include indium particles, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Jeon in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 7.
Jeon in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a weight of the indium (In) particles are less than 80% of a total weight of the protective layer, however, Kim discloses the conductive particles “may have a flowability at a high temperature condition” (Kim paragraph 0110), in which the weight of the conductive particles impacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the specified weight range of the indium particles with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Jeon in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 7.
Jeon in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a weight of the indium (In) particles is in a range of 10% to 70% of a total weight of the protective layer, however, Kim discloses the conductive particles “may have a flowability at a high temperature condition” (Kim paragraph 0110), in which the weight of the conductive particles impacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the specified weight range of the indium particles with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Jeon in view of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1.
Jeon in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the wiring protection member including the protective layer and the plurality of conductive particles dispersed in the protective layer has a surface resistance value higher than 106 Ω/□, however, Kim discloses the conductive particles “may be metallic particles or alloy particles in which various kinds of metal are mixed” (paragraph 0109) and Jeon discloses the protective layer “according to an embodiment may include a light blocking material including black ink” (paragraph 0630).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the specified surface resistance value range with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the protective layer further includes at least one of a light-blocking material, a binder resin, a curing agent, and a solvent (paragraph 0630, “edge coating layer 403 according to an embodiment may include a light blocking material including black ink”).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the light-blocking material includes black ink or carbon black (paragraph 0630, “edge coating layer 403 according to an embodiment may include a light blocking material including black ink”).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Jeon further teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the wiring protection member including the protective layer and the plurality of conductive particles dispersed in the protective layer, in operation, prevents migration of metal ions between adjacent side wirings (paragraph 0630, “edge coating layer 403 may prevent the corrosion of each of the plurality of routing lines 401 including a metal material or electrical short circuit between the plurality of routing lines 401”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Jeon teaches a tiling display apparatus (fig. 36) comprising a plurality of display devices (10-1, 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4) arranged in a tiling manner, wherein each of the plurality of display devices includes the display device including:
a first substrate (fig. 17, 100) having a plurality of light-emitting elements (103) disposed over one surface thereof;
a first pad electrode (110) disposed over an outermost position of the first substrate;
a second substrate (200) bonded to an opposite surface to the one surface of the first substrate;
a second pad electrode (210) disposed over an outermost position of the second substrate;
a plurality of side wirings (401) electrically connecting the first substrate and the second substrate to each other (paragraph 0151, see also fig. 5, 410 which corresponds to 401 electrically connects 100 and 200), wherein each side wiring of the plurality of side wirings extends from the first pad electrode to the second pad electrode along outer side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate (paragraph 0626);
a wiring protection member (403) covering the side wiring; and
a side sealing member (109) covering a side surface portion, and
PNG
media_image1.png
540
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of display devices is arranged such that the side sealing members of adjacent ones of the plurality of display devices are adjacent to each other (see figure below).
Jeon does not teach wherein the wiring protection member includes a protective layer and a plurality of conductive particles dispersed in the protective layer.
Kim teaches wherein the wiring protection member (fig. 10, AF occupies space for wiring protection member of Kim) includes a protective layer (BR) and a plurality of conductive particles (CP) dispersed in the protective layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the display device of and the protective layer of Kim in order to electrically connect the panel pads and the connecting pads (Kim paragraph 0110).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/30/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the instant Remarks: “Jeon discloses a black ink used as an edge coating layer 403 covering a routing line 401. Therefore, the configuration of Jeon is rather exposed to the same technical problem recognized in the present application. Thus, Jeon does not address, and in fact may exacerbate, the migration problem recognized in the present application… Accordingly, the first connection member AF1 of Kim must necessarily have electrical conductivity in order to provide electrical conduction. Further, Kim does not provide any suggestion that the first connection member AF1 functions as a protective layer. Therefore, Kim is directed to a conductive bonding structure that differs in both purpose and structure from the wiring protection portion of the present application. Because Kim requires electrical conductivity to establish electrical connection between electrodes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify first connection member AF1 of Kim to form a non-conductive protective layer covering side wirings as recited in the present claims. Therefore, even a person of ordinary skill in the art would have difficulty applying the first connection member AF1 of Kim, which is used for electrical conduction, to the edge coating layer 403 of Jeon.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, it has been held that the test of obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes explicit to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). Also, examiner notes applicant does not explicitly claim the material of the wiring protection matter, and Jeon discloses “edge coating layer 403 may prevent the corrosion of each of the plurality of routing lines 401 including a metal material or electrical short circuit between the plurality of routing lines 401. Also, the edge coating layer 403 may prevent or minimize the reflection of external light caused by the plurality of routing lines 401” which is also described in paragraphs [0065] and [0068] of the present application.
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 GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights