DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2018/0026088) in view of Yang (US 11,227,911).
With regard to claim 14, figs. 12 of Oh discloses display device comprising: a substrate 100 comprising a first area 1A, a second area 2A and a bending area BA between the first area 1A and the second area 2A; a display element layer G disposed on the first area DA of the substrate 100; a plurality of signal lines 420 disposed on the bending area BA of the substrate 100, the plurality of signal lines 420 being spaced apart from one another in a first direction Y, and the plurality of signal lines 420 being electrically connected to the display element layer G; and a bending protection layer (500 in BA) disposed on the bending area BA of the substrate 100 and covering the plurality of signal lines 420, wherein the plurality of signal lines 420 comprise a first outermost signal line (leftmost 420) at an outermost location in the first direction y among the plurality of signal lines 420, and the bending protection layer 500 includes a first end (left end of 500 in BA, fig. 12) that is disposed between a first edge of the substrate (left edge of 100, fig. 12) and the first outermost signal line (leftmost 420, fig. 12).
Oh does not disclose that a distance between the first edge of the substrate and an edge of the first outermost signal line facing the first end of the bending protection layer is greater than about 1,800 µm.
However, fig. 10 of Yang discloses that a distance between the first edge of the substrate (left 202) and an edge of the first outermost signal line (leftmost 4011) facing the first end (left 202) of the bending protection layer C is greater than about 1,800 µm (“3 mm”, col. 3 ll. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the connection wire of Oh more than 1800 um from the edge of the bending area as taught in Yang in order to improve the success ratio of bending. See col. 9 ll. 58-59 of Yang.
With regard to claim 15, fig. 12 of Oh discloses that the plurality of signal lines 420 further comprise a second outermost signal line (rightmost 420 fig. 12) disposed at an outermost location in the first direction y among the plurality of signal lines 420, the second outermost signal line (rightmost 420) being disposed on an opposite side (right side of BA in fig. 12) from the first outermost signal line (leftmost 420, fig. 12), and the bending protection layer 500 includes a second end (right end of 500, fig. 12) that is disposed between a second edge (right side of 100 in BA, fig. 12) of the substrate 100 and the second outermost signal line (rightmost 420, fig. 12).
With regard to claim 20, fig. 12 of Oh discloses that the plurality of signal lines 420 are not disposed between the edges of the substrate (edge of 100) and the ends of the bending protection layer (left and right ends of 500).
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.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2018/0026088), Yang (US 11,227,911), and Lee (US 2018/0183001).
With regard to claim 16, Oh and Yang do not disclose a thickness of the bending protection layer overlapping the plurality of signal lines in a direction perpendicular to the first direction is greater than about 90 μm and equal to or less than about 120 μm.
However, fig. 1B of Lee discloses a thickness of the bending protection layer 170 overlapping the plurality of signal lines 160 in a direction perpendicular (top to bottom fig. 1B) to the first direction (in and out of page in fig. 1B) is greater than about 90 μm and equal to or less than about 120 μm (“micro coating layer 170 may be 70 μm to 130 μm”, par [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bending protection layer of Oh with the thickness as taught in Lee in order to implement sufficient adhesiveness. See par [0079] of Lee.
With regard to claim 17, Oh does not disclose a distance between the second edge of the substrate and an edge of the second outermost signal line facing the second end of the bending protection layer are is greater than about 1,800 µm.
However, fig. 10 of Yang a distance between the second edge of the substrate (right 202) and an edge of the second outermost signal line (right most 4011) facing the second end (right 2020) of the bending protection layer C are is greater than about 1,800 µm (“3 mm”, col. 3 ll. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the bending protection layer of Oh with the thickness as taught in Lee in order to implement sufficient adhesiveness. See par [0079] of Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 1 is that closed prior art Oh et al. (US 2018/0026088) does not disclose a first portion that does not overlap the plurality of signal lines, the first portion having an inclined surface along the first direction. Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1 and are also allowed.
Claims 18-19 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.
Regarding claim 18, Oh (US 2018/0026088), Yang (US 11,227,911), and Lee (US 2018/0183001) do not disclose a distance in the first direction from the first edge of the substrate to the first end of the bending protection layer is in a range of about 800 µm to about 1,000 µm.
Regarding claim 19, Oh (US 2018/0026088), Yang (US 11,227,911), and Lee (US 2018/0183001) do not disclose a distance in the first direction between the first end of the bending protection layer and the edge of the first outermost signal line facing the first end of the bending protection layer, and a distance in the first direction between the second end of the bending protection layer and the edge of the second outermost signal line facing the second end of the bending protection layer are in a range of about 800 µm to about 1,000 µm.
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 BENJAMIN T LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at 571 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN TZU-HUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
