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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20170271429 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Kim in teaches a display panel, comprising:
a light-emitting region 210 and a non-light-emitting region 500 located at a periphery of the light-emitting region, wherein the display panel comprises a light-emitting side and a backlight side disposed opposite to each other along a thickness direction (Figs. 5&6);
the display panel comprises a touch layer 400 [¶591] and a filter layer located in the touch layer, the filter layer comprises a color filter 300/300a, the touch layer 400 comprises a first touch wire 410 and a second touch wire 420, the second touch wire is located at a side of the first touch wire close to the light-emitting side; the color filter comprises a first color filter and a second color filter, the first color filter is located at the light-emitting region, the second color filter, the first touch wire and the second touch wire are all located at the non-light-emitting region, and the second color filter is located between the first touch wire and the second touch wire (Figs. 5&6);
PNG
media_image3.png
141
176
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the second color filter and at least part of the first color filter are disposed to be in same layer and of same material (Figs. 5&6 – e.g. same color filter material fig. 6, or same as in being “a color filter material” fig. 4. Either interpretation meets the BRI of the claim language.).
CLAIM 19. Kim in teaches a display device, comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (Figs. 5 & 6- This depending claim does not provide any further structural distinction.).
CLAIM 2. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first color filter comprises a plurality of sub-color filters that have different colors and are disposed at intervals, and the second color filter is disposed to be in same layer and of same material as the sub-color filters having at least one color (Figs. 5&6 – Kim demonstrates the same effective device structure with arrangement of layers and elements. The language does not provide a clear structural distinction.).
CLAIM 3. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 1, wherein the second color filter has a via-hole running through the second color filter along a thickness direction, and the second touch wire covers a hole wall surface of the via-hole and is connected with the first touch wire; and a size of an opening of the via-hole gradually increases along a direction from the backlight side to the light-emitting side (Figs. 5,6, 8 – Figures demonstrate tapered shape. Expanded portion of Fig. 8 clearly shows the taper. For further clarity the expanded portion of fig. 8 is reproduced blew with marked up vertical lines drawing additional contrast to the taper.).
PNG
media_image4.png
223
191
media_image4.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 4. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 1, wherein the filter layer further comprises a light-shielding layer 500, at least part of the light-shielding layer is located at a side of the second touch wire close to the light-emitting side (Figs. 5 &6).
CLAIM 5. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein a positive projection of the light-shielding layer 500 on a plane where the first touch wire 410 is located covers the first touch wire (Figs. 5 &6)..
CLAIM 6. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein a positive projection of the light-shielding layer 500 on a plane where the second touch wire 420 is located covers the second touch wire (Figs. 5 &6).
CLAIM 7. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein at least part of the first color filter extends to the non-light-emitting region, the light-shielding layer is located at a side of the first color filter close to the light-emitting side, and a positive projection of the first color filter located in the non-light-emitting region on a plane where the light-shielding layer is located partially overlaps the light-shielding layer (Figs. 5 &6).
CLAIM 8. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein a positive projection of the second touch wire on a plane where the second color filter is located is located on an inner side of an outer edge of the second color filter (Figs. 5 &6).
CLAIM 10. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein a space between the first color filter and the second color filter gradually increases along a direction from the backlight side to the light-emitting side (Figs. 5 &6).
CLAIM 11. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, wherein a protective layer is disposed in the touch layer, and at least part of the protective layer is located at a side of the first color filter close to the light-emitting side (Figs. 5 &6 – The second color filter functions as a “protection” layer as it is a insulator providing dielectric isolation, thereby meeting BRI scope of the functional limitation.).
CLAIM 12. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 11, wherein the protective layer comprises a first protective layer, and the first protective layer covers a surface of the first color filter close to the light-emitting side (Figs. 5 &6 – The second color filter functions as a “protection” layer as it is a insulator providing dielectric isolation, thereby meeting BRI scope of the functional limitation.).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170271429 A1).
CLAIM 13. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 12, however may be silent regarding the refractive index of the first color filter being less than that of the first protective layer, relative refractive index is a well-understood property for controlling light transmission and reflection at interfaces. It is well within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to select suitable refractive indices to achieve the desired optical results. Simply choosing a higher, lower, or identical relative index is merely an exercise of routine optimization among a limited set of predictable options.
Claim(s) 14-18 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170271429 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 11650681 B2) [Kim2].
CLAIM 14. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 12, however may be wherein the display panel comprises an adhesive layer, the adhesive layer is located at a side of the touch layer facing away from the light-emitting layer, and a refractive index of the adhesive layer is less than a refractive index of the first protective layer. Kim discloses only a generic display structure that abruptly terminates at the shielding layer, rendering the disclosed display inoperable in a practical, real-world device. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention would inherently recognize that a functional display requires additional protective and structural layers.
Kim2 provides precisely the necessary teaching to bridge this gap, detailing a transparent adhesive layer (ADH1 ) used for critical cushioning and structural integration over ISP layer (touch wiring layer). Kim2 further teaches that this layer facilitates the attachment of additional protective films, such as window layers WIN, which shield the screen against scratches and impacts.
Because Kim2 and Kim operate in the same display technology space, combining their elements is straightforward. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to modify Kim’s display panel by integrating Kim2’s transparent adhesive layer. As established in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., applying a known technique (Kim2's adhesive layer) to a known device ready for improvement (Kim's incomplete display) to yield predictable results is, by definition, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
PNG
media_image5.png
436
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
510
820
media_image6.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 15. Kim in view of Kim2 teach a display panel according to claim 12, wherein the protective layer comprises a second protective layer, the second protective layer is located on at least one of a surface of the light-shielding layer close to the light-emitting side and a surface of the light-shielding layer close to the backlight side (Kim2 - Fig. 2 – Kim as modified by Kim2 to include further adhesive layers and Window layer.).
CLAIM 16. Kim in view of Kim2 teach a display panel according to claim 15, wherein the first protective layer and the second protective layer are an integrated member (Kim2 - Fig. 2 – Kim as modified by Kim2 to include further adhesive layers and Window layer.).
CLAIM 17. Kim in view of Kim2 teach a display panel according to claim 2, however may be silent upon wherein the first color filter has a thickness in a range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm; and/or, the second color filter has a thickness in a range of 0.5 μm to 15 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 18. Kim in view of Kim2 teach a display panel according to claim 2, wherein the color filter has a dielectric constant of less than or equal to 10; and/or, the color filter has a surface impedance of greater than or equal to 10.sup.11 Ω/square.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the dielectric constant/surface impedance through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the dielectric constant/surface impedance is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
CLAIM 9. Kim in teaches a display panel according to claim 4, however may be silent upon the capability of wherein a gap is disposed between the first color filter and the second color filter, and the light-shielding layer is located in the gap.
As demonstrated in Kim2, Fig. 13, the shielding (BM) is located in a gap between the first and second color filters, meeting the exact structural limitations of the presented claims. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would find the placement of the shielding in this gap obvious.
Under MPEP § 2143, Example B, the simple substitution or relocation of known elements to obtain predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Because both the shielding and the color filter gaps are established components in the art, moving the BM into the gap is merely a matter of routine engineering or an obvious design choice.
Furthermore, as outlined in MPEP § 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is obvious where the applicant has not demonstrated that the particular configuration yields any unexpected, synergistic results. Because the relocation of the shielding performs the exact same function in substantially the same way without producing unexpected technical benefits, the claimed modification is rendered unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
5/19/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Kim - [0059] The first metal patterns 410 may be a connecting wire 400 for a touch screen. For example, the touch screen may include a plurality of sensors and the first metal patterns 410 may function as the connecting wire 400 to connect the plurality of sensors. Accordingly, the first metal patterns 410 may include a conductive metal material.
Prosecution Insights