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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-17, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20150221695).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses that a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 120;
a first wiring layer 122, disposed on the substrate 120;
a second wiring layer 222ab, disposed on and insulated from the first wiring layer 122, and comprising:
a first connection part 313p; and
a second connection part, 311p electrically connected to the first connection part, and disposed on a side of the first connection part (Fig. 4A);
an insulation layer 225 & 210, disposed on the second wiring layer 222ab, and provided with a plurality of first via holes 312p above the first wiring layer 122 and a plurality of second via holes 311p & 313p above the first connection part and the second connection part; and
a transfer layer 275, disposed on the insulation layer 225 & 210, and connecting to the first wiring layer 122 and the second wiring layer 222ab through the plurality of first via holes 312p and the plurality of second via holes 311p & 313p.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reclaim 9, Park discloses that a projection of the first connection part 313p (at contact) on the substrate 110 partially overlaps with a projection of the first wiring layer 122 on the substrate 110, and a projection of the second connection part 311p on the substrate partially overlaps with the projection of the first wiring layer 122 on the substrate (Fig. 4A);
the second via holes 313p above the first connection part are all arranged in an overlapping area of the first connection part (at contact area of a via) and the first wiring layer 122, the second via holes 311p above the second connection part (at contact part of via) are all arranged in an overlapping area of the second connection part and the first wiring layer 122, and each of the second via holes exposes part of the second wiring layer (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 10, Park discloses that the display panel further comprises a display area and a non-display area, the first connection part is disposed in the display area and extends into the non-display area, the second connection part is disposed in at an edge on a side of the non- display area away from the display area (Fig. 4A, LCD, para. 0181).
Reclaim 11, Park discloses that an overlapping area of projections of the second connection part 311p and the first wiring layer 125 on the substrate 110 is less than an overlapping area of projections of the first connection part and the first wiring layer on the substrate (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 12, Park discloses that in a direction from the display area towards the non-display area, a length of the second connection part 311p is shorter than a length of the first connection part 313p (para. 0181).
Reclaim 13, Park discloses that the first connection part 313p and the second connection part 311p are respectively provided on opposite sides of the plurality of first via holes (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 14, Park discloses that the plurality of first via holes 312p are arranged side by side in one or more columns each having a column direction perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the first connection part 313p and the second connection part 311p (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 15, Park discloses that the second via holes 311p above the first connection part and the second connection part are arranged side by side in one or more columns each having a column direction parallel to the column direction of the plurality of first via holes 312p (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 16, Park discloses that the second via holes 311p above the second connection part (at contact of the second via) are arranged side by side in one column, and the transfer layer is only electrically connected to portions of the second wiring layer corresponding to the second via holes above the second connection part with even numbers starting from any end of the column (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 17, Park discloses that the first connection part 311p and the second connection part 312p (at contact of the via) are provided on a same side of the plurality of first via holes (Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 19, Park discloses that another insulation layer, defined as a first insulation layer 125, disposed on the substrate and covering the first wiring layer 125, wherein the second wiring layer 222ab is disposed on the first insulation layer 125, the insulation layer disposed on the second wiring layer 225 is defined as a second insulation layer, the second insulation layer is disposed on the first insulation layer 125 and covering the second wiring layer 22ab; and
wherein the transfer layer 275 is disposed on the second insulation layer 225, each of the first via holes 312p penetrates the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer to expose part of the first wiring layer 122, and each of the second via holes above the first connection part penetrates the second insulation layer 225 to expose part of the first connection part, and each of the second via holes above the second connection part penetrates the second insulation layer to expose part of the second connection part (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses that a display device, comprising a display panel, and the display panel comprising:
a substrate 110;
a first wiring layer 125, disposed on the substrate;
a second wiring layer 222ab, disposed on and insulated 125 from the first wiring layer, and comprising:
a first connection part (at contact of via 3119 & 313P); and a second connection part (at contact of via 3119 & 313P), electrically connected to the first connection part, and disposed on a side of the first connection part;
an insulation layer 225, disposed on the second wiring layer 222ab, and provided with a plurality of first via holes above the first wiring layer and a plurality of second via holes above the first connection part and the second connection part; and
a transfer layer 275, disposed on the insulation layer 225, and connecting to the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer through the plurality of first via holes and the plurality of second via holes (Fig. 4A).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20150221695) in view of Xu et al (US 20210384181).
Reclaim 2, Park discloses that in a plane perpendicular to thickness direction, a distance between each of the second via holes 311p above the first connection part 311p (at contact) and a corresponding one of the first via holes 312p is greater than or equal to a distance between each of the second via holes above the second connection part and a corresponding one of the first via holes (Park, Fig.4A, the first via is longer than the second via).
Park fails to specify that Xu suggests that a display device.
However, Xu suggests that a display device can includes an imager device (para. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Park with a display device can includes an imager device as taught by Xu in order to enhance complexity of display device and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 3, Park & Xu disclose that in the plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display panel (Xu, para. 0013, note: a display device can include an imager device (a photodiode structure)), each of the second via holes 311p above the second connection part 311p is arranged on a perpendicular bisector between two adjacent ones of the second via holes above the first connection part (Park, Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 4, Park & Xu disclose that in the plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display panel (Xu, para. 0013, note: a display device can include an imager device (a photodiode structure)), each of the second via holes 311p above the first connection part and a corresponding one of the second via holes above the second connection part are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of a corresponding one of the first via holes (Park, Fig. 4A, in y axis).
Reclaim 5, Park & Xu fail to teach that the plurality of first via holes are arranged side by side and at equal intervals, the second via holes above the first connection part are arranged side by side and at equal intervals, and the second via holes above the second connection part are arranged side by side and at equal intervals.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain space between vias, because it would have been to obtain a certain space between vias to achieve control magnetic field around vias and equalize vias density in that area.
Reclaim 6, Park & Xu disclose that in the plane perpendicular to a thickness direction of the display panel (Xu, para. 0013, note: a display device can include an imager device (a photodiode structure)), an arrangement direction of the plurality of first via holes, an arrangement direction of the second via holes above the first connection part, and an arrangement direction of the second via holes above the second connection part are the same (Park, Fig. 4A).
Reclaim 7, Park & Xu fail to specify that a number of the second via holes above the first connection part is greater than or equal to a number of the second via holes above the second connection part.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain space between vias, because it would have been to obtain a certain space between vias to achieve control magnetic field around vias and equalize vias density in that area.
Reclaim 8, Park & Xu fail to teach that a diameter of each of the second via holes above the first connection part is less than or equal to a diameter of each of the second via holes above the second connection part, and the diameter of each of the second via holes is less than a diameter of each of the first via holes.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain ratio of a diameter of the second via hole and the first via hole, because it would have been to obtain a certain space between vias to achieve properly electrical contact due to different depth of vias by reducing air bubble during deposition of metals i.e. a first via is deeper than a second via hole).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20150221695) in view of Kwon (US 20070048969 ).
Reclaim 18, Park discloses that each of the second via holes above the first connection part has a slope of a side wall and a slope of a side wall of each of the second via holes above the second connection part (Fig. 4A).
However, Park fails to teach each of the second via holes above the first connection part has a slope of a side wall less than a slope of a side wall of each of the second via holes above the second connection part.
However, Kwon suggests that each of the second via holes above the first connection part has a slope of a side wall less than a slope of a side wall of each of the second via holes above the second connection part (Fig. 6, note: different slops on the different via).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Park with each of the second via holes above the first connection part has a slope of a side wall less than a slope of a side wall of each of the second via holes above the second connection part as taught by Kwon in order to improve in yield and device reliability (para. 0088) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Also, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., via structured formed in film layer of the image display part) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that “- - paragraph [0180] of park, the image display part 430, rather than the image sensing part 410, should be considered corresponding to the display panel/device as claimed and the disclosed via structure shown in FIG. 4A is applied in the active pixel sensor of the image sensing part 410, rather than applied in the image display part 430. In other words, the disclosed via structure shown in FIG. 4A of Park is a part of the image sensing part 410 (belonging to sensor technology) that is independently of the image display part 430, and Park is silent about any via structure formed in film layers of the image display part 430- -.“
However, nowhere in the body of claim specify applicant’s arguments and the body of claim does not specify via structured formed in film layer of the image display part (in at least independent claims 1 & 20).
Furthermore, applicant argues that “- - the input/output(I/O) part 540, rather than the image sensing part 520, should be considered corresponding to the display panel/device as claimed, and the disclosed via structure shown in Fig. 4A is applied in the backside illuminated image sensor of the image sensing part 520, rather than applied in the input/output)I/O) part 540.
However, Applicant’s claim were not specified via structure whether in an image sensing part nor a display panel ( in at least independent claims) .
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) “a display panel. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “display panel“ is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 9-17 & 19-20, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is deemed proper.
In addition, for the rejection of claims 7, 8, & 18, the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed proper.
Applicant amend claims 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6, now claims 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 are rejected with Park et al. (US 20150221695) in view of Xu et al. (US 20210384181 ).
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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights