DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Jun. 10, 2026 has been entered and made of record. In view of the Applicant’s amendments of title and abstract, the objections to the specification have been expressly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has not been amended, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 13)
Thus, the claimed arrangement is specifically tied to the geometry and optical behavior of the touch-metal sidewall structure. Moon does not address that problem or that structure … That disclosure is not a touch-metal sidewall treatment in a touch sensing unit. Nor does Moon disclose a low reflection layer on a touch metal layer followed by a passivation layer, with the recited touch-trace coplanarity relationship.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given that Kim already addresses the problem of the “geometry and optical behavior of the touch-metal sidewall structure”, whereas the “touch-metal sidewall” contains the “touch-trace (CTL1 CTL2)”, the “recited touch-trace coplanarity relationship” becomes substantially similar to the problem addressed by Moon that “light emitted by the OLED is emitted not only toward the front side but also toward the lateral side of the display device”. Thus, solution taught by Moon is reasonably applied to the problem at issue.
Further, even though Moon does not expressly escribe a feature regarding the “touch-metal sidewall”, such structure is very common in the art of the OLED display taught by Moon, and the Examiner respectfully submits that Examiner respectfully submits that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues (Remarks, p. 14)
In attempting to fill that gap, the rejection maps Moon’s “inclined surface” not to an inclined surface of Kim’s second conductive layer, but instead to the inclined surface of Moon’s “second low refractive index portion 322.” Id. That mapping does not establish the claimed structure. The claim requires a particular arrangement relative to the inclined surface of the second conductive layer of the touch metal itself, not merely an inclined optical feature in some other layer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mapping establish the claimed structure as provided in the prior Office Action, which becomes clearer with the figures below. That is, FIG. 8 of Moon clearly teaches the concept of “side walls 341 343”, which can substitute the structure of “sidewall 420S” of Kim.
Examiner further notes that more detailed feature of the “side walls”, e.g., “thickness of the low reflection layer”, etc., was indicated as allowable subject matters, e.g., in claims 6 and 9. Examiner respectfully submits that 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues (Remarks, p. 14)
The rejection also relies on a conclusory reconstruction of the claimed stack by asserting that one would have substituted Kim’s “first insulating layer 420” with Moon’s inclined light-blocking structure then “fill[ed] the inside the inclined structure with” Kim’s first and second sub-conductive layers … No such reasoned explanation has been provided here for why a skilled artisan would have taken Moon’s OLED optical extraction/capping arrangement and reengineered Kim’s touch-metal trace into the specific sidewall configuration now claimed, particularly where the present application identifies a different technical problem and a different layer function.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Kim and Moon, combined together, address substantially the same technical problem and same layer function, which are clearly described in figures, e.g., as shown above to be structurally substitutable. For example, they are both disposed on top of “pixel defining layer 209” (Kim) and “pixel defining layer 190” (Moon), performing the same function of reflecting light toward the openings.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not allowable.
As to claims 2-5, 7-8 and 19, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claims 6, 9-14 and 20, they remain allowable. Please see the following allowable subject matter for detailed analysis.
As to claims 15-18, they remain allowed. Please see the following allowable subject matter for detailed analysis.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336227 A1) in view of Moon et al. (US 2019/0115404 A1).
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a touch sensing unit (Kim, FIGS. 5-7, [0074], “as illustrated in FIGS. 5A and 5B, each of the first sensing electrodes SP1 may be formed in a conductive layer CTL”) comprising:
a substrate (Kim, FIGS. 5-7, [0082], “substrate 100”) comprising an emission area (Kim, FIGS. 5-7, [0102], “emission area EA”) and a non-emission area (Kim, FIGS. 5-7, [0102], outer area of “emission area EA”);
a light emitting element (Kim, FIGS. 5-7, [0109], “OLED” comprising “pixel electrode 221”, “emission layer 222” and “opposite electrode 223”) positioned on the substrate (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0082], “substrate 100”) and overlapping the emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], “emission area EA”);
a thin film encapsulation layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0097], “organic encapsulation layer 320”) on the light emitting element (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0109], “OLED” comprising “pixel electrode 221”, “emission layer 222” and “opposite electrode 223”) and overlapping the emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], “emission area EA”) and the non-emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], outer area of “emission area EA”); and
a touch sensor layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0100], “functional layer 400”) on the thin film encapsulation layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0097], “organic encapsulation layer 320”), wherein the touch sensor layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0100], “functional layer 400”) comprises:
a touch insulating layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”) on the thin film encapsulation layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0097], “organic encapsulation layer 320”) and overlapping the emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], “emission area EA”) and the non-emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], outer area of “emission area EA”);
a touch metal layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0080], “conductive layer CTL” comprising “first sub-conductive layer CTL1” and “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) on the touch insulating layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”) and overlapping the non-emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], outer area of “emission area EA”);
an insulating layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0109], “first insulating layer 420”; “Light “L” emitted from the OLED may be reflected from the side surface 420S of the first insulating layer 420 for improved light emission efficiency”) on the touch metal layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “conductive layer CTL” comprising “first sub-conductive layer CTL1” and “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”);
a touch protection layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0108], “second insulating layer 440” that “may protect the above-mentioned conductive layer by covering the conductive layer included in the functional layer 400”) on the touch insulating layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”) and overlapping the emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], “emission area EA”) and the non-emission area (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0102], outer area of “emission area EA”),
wherein the touch metal layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “conductive layer CTL” comprising “first sub-conductive layer CTL1” and “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) comprises:
a first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”) on the touch insulating layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”); and
a second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) on the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”),
wherein the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) comprises a first surface (Kim, see FIG. 7, bottom surface of “CTL2”) in contact with the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”), a second surface (Kim, see FIG. 7, top surface of “CTL2”) opposite to the first surface (Kim, see FIG. 7, bottom surface of “CTL2”).
Kim does not teach “a passivation layer on the low reflection layer” so that “a first inclined surface connects the first surface to the second surface”; and “wherein the passivation layer is positioned on the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer, wherein the low reflection layer is positioned between the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer and the passivation layer, and comprising a third surface positioned to face the touch protection layer, and wherein the second surface of the second conductive layer and the third surface of the low reflection layer are aligned in a first direction and are positioned on the same plane”.
However, Moon teaches the concepts of a passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) on the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”);
the concepts that the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) is positioned on the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], inclined surface of “second low refractive index portion 322”), wherein the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”) is positioned between the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], inclined surface of “second low refractive index portion 322”) and the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”), and comprising a third surface (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], top surface of “second reflection layer 332”) positioned to face the touch protection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0104], “second substrate 211”); and
wherein the second surface (Kim, see FIG. 7, top surface of “CTL2”) of the second conductive layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”) and the third surface (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], top surface of “second reflection layer 332”) of the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”) are aligned in a first direction and are positioned on the same plane (Moon, see FIG. 8, flat on the same plane defined by “second substrate 211”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to (1) substitute the “first insulating layer 420” taught by Kim with the inclined light blocking structure of the “second low refractive index portion 322” and the “second reflection layer 332” taught by Moon; and (2) fill the inside the inclined structure with the “first sub-conductive layer CTL1” and the “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”, as taught by Moon, so that a first inclined surface connects the first surface to the second surface (Moon, e.g., see FIG. 8), in order to address the problem that “light emitted by the OLED is emitted not only toward the front side but also toward the lateral side of the display device. Accordingly, light emission efficiency of the display device is lowered, and power consumption of the display device may increase” (Moon, [0004]).
As to claim 2, Kim in view of Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 1, wherein the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) further comprises a fourth surface (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], top surface of “second reflection layer 332”) positioned to face the touch protection layer (Kim, FIG. 7, [0108], “second insulating layer 440”), and
wherein the second surface of the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], top surface of “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”), the third surface of the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], top surface of “second low refractive index portion 322”), and the fourth surface of the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], top surface of “second reflection layer 332”) are aligned in the first direction and positioned on the same plane (Kim, see FIG. 7). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Kim in view of Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 2, wherein the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”) and the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) are disposed on the touch insulating layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”) in partial contact therewith (Moon, see FIG. 8), wherein the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) is not in contact with the touch insulating layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0115], “second inorganic encapsulation layer 330”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 4, Kim in view of Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 3, wherein the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”) further comprises a second inclined surface extending from the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], inclined surface of “second low refractive index portion 322”), and wherein the second inclined surface is in contact with the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 3, wherein a first inclination angle formed by one surface of the first conductive layer in contact with the second conductive layer and the first inclined surface of the second conductive layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], inclined surface of “second low refractive index portion 322”) ranges from about 60° to about 90° (Moon, FIG. 8, [0132], “first angle θ1 of the first inclined portion 321a may be about 45 degrees or more”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 7, Kim in view of Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”) and the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”) are formed in a mesh shape (Kim, e.g., see FIGS. 4-6), and the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) and the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”) are formed in a mesh shape to surround side surfaces of (Kim, e.g., see FIG. 4-6) the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “first sub-conductive layer CTL1”) and the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 7, [0080], “second sub-conductive layer CTL2”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 8, Kim in view of Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 7, further comprising an opening (Moon, FIGS. 6-7, [0120], “opening OP”) formed by the passivation layer (Moon, FIGS. 6-8, [0120], “second reflection layer 332”) and the low reflection layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second low refractive index portion 322”), wherein the opening (Moon, FIGS. 6-7, [0120], “opening OP”) overlaps the emission area (Moon, FIGS. 6-8, [0101], “light extraction area LEA1 of the OLED 170”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 19, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the same touch sensing unit, reciting “a touch signal line” instead of “a touch metal layer”, which are fundamentally the same. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Kim in view of Moon teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-14 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6, Moon teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 4, wherein the passivation layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0119], “second reflection layer 332”) comprises an inorganic layer (Moon, FIG. 8, [0131], “second reflection layer 332 may include a metal material having high reflectance”).
However, the closest known prior art, i.e., Kim et al. (US 2021/0336227 A1), Moon et al. (US 2019/0115404 A1), Shim et al. (US 2023/0023671 A1) and Yoo et al. (US 2023/0229270 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “wherein a thickness of the low reflection layer in the first direction is smaller than a thickness of the passivation layer, a thickness of the low reflection layer in the first direction ranges from about 100 Å to about 200 Å, the low reflection layer contains amorphous silicon (a-Si) and silicon carbonite (SiC)”.
As to claim 9, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “wherein the touch metal layer further comprises a third conductive layer disposed on the second conductive layer, one surface of the third conductive layer facing the second conductive layer is in partial contact with the third surface, and a first side surface of the third conductive layer and a second side surface of the low reflection layer are aligned on the same plane in a direction perpendicular to the first direction”.
As to claims 10-12, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 9, and are allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 13, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “a connection electrode overlapping the non-emission area and positioned between the thin film encapsulation layer and the touch insulating layer; and a touch contact hole passing through a center of the touch insulating layer, wherein the connection electrode and the touch metal layer are electrically connected by the touch contact hole”.
As to claim 14, it depends from claim 14, and is allowable at least for the reason above.
As to claim 20, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “a third conductive layer disposed on the second conductive layer, wherein one surface of the third conductive layer is disposed in partial contact with the third surface, and wherein a side surface of the third conductive layer and a side surface of the low reflection layer are aligned in a direction perpendicular to the first direction”.
Claims 15-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 15, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the same touch sensing unit of claim 1, further comprising “a third conductive layer covering the first inclined surface and the second surface wherein the first side surface located at both ends of the first conductive layer in the first direction and the second side surface located at both ends of the third conductive layer in the first direction are aligned on the same plane”. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Kim in view of Moon teaches them.
However, he closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “a third conductive layer covering the first inclined surface and the second surface wherein the first side surface located at both ends of the first conductive layer in the first direction and the second side surface located at both ends of the third conductive layer in the first direction are aligned on the same plane”.
As to claims 16-18, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 15, and are allowed at least for the reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ji et al. (US 2022/0140288 A1) teaches the concept of an inclined structure comprising sensing electrode with black matrix (e.g., FIG. 5B); and
Lee (US 2019/0252470 A1) teaches the concept of an inclined structure comprising sensing electrode with black matrix (e.g., FIG. 9).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Aug. 6, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights