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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Display panel and display device comprising a drive circuit unit and a control circuit unit disposed in a non-display area.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0187279) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0043545).
In re claim 1, Lee discloses a display panel 100 having a display area AA and a non-display area N/A surrounding the display area AA (see paragraph [0054] and figs. 4-7C), the display panel 100 comprising: a drive circuit unit 230 disposed in the non-display area N/A (see paragraph [0147] and figs. 4-7C); a control circuit unit 220 disposed in the non-display area N/A (see paragraph [0147] and figs. 4-7C); a first metal wire (146a,146b) at least partially disposed in the display area AA (see paragraphs [0148], [0149], [0150] and figs. 4-7C) ; and a second metal wire 141c disposed in the non-display area N/A and electrically connecting the drive circuit unit 230 with the control circuit unit 220 (see paragraph [0157] and figs. 4-7C).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee is silent to wherein a thickness of the second metal wire is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire.
However, Kim discloses in a same field of endeavor, a display panel, including, inter-alia, a first metal wire 124 at least partially disposed in the display area and a second metal wire 121 (including a lower gate line 121a and an upper gate line 121b) disposed in the non-display area, wherein a thickness of the second metal wire (combination of the lower gate line 121a and the upper gate line 121b) is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire 124 (see paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0035] and figs. 2-8, note that, the first metal wire 124 and the lower gate line 121a may be formed using a same technique and having a same thickness, subsequently, the upper gate line 121b is formed on the lower gate line 121a using an electroless plating method constituting the second metal wire 121, see paragraph [0035], thus, it is inherent that the thickness of the second metal wire 121 is greater than the thickness of the first metal wire 124).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kim into the display panel of Lee in order to enable wherein a thickness of the second metal wire is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire in Lee to be formed in order to lower resistance of the second metal wire and thus preventing the occurrence of signal delay or voltage drop in the display panel (see paragraph [0010] of Kim). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein number of metal films (121a,121b) of the second metal wire 121 is greater than number of metal film(s) of the first metal wire 124 (see paragraph [0030] and figs. 2-8 of Kim).
In re claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein at least a portion of the first metal wire 124 and at least a portion 121a of the second metal wire 121 are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraph [0035] and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 2 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein at least a portion of the first metal wire 124 and at least a portion 121a of the second metal wire 121 are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraph [0035[ and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein the first metal wire 124 comprises a first lower metal film 124; the second metal wire 121 comprises a second lower metal film 121a and a second upper metal film 121b, the second upper metal film 121b and the second lower metal film 121a are stacked; and wherein the first lower metal film 124 and the second lower metal film 121a are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraphs [0032], [0035] and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
Lee and Kim are silent to wherein a material of the second upper metal film is different from a material of the second lower metal film.
However, Kim discloses that the second metal wire 121 can be formed of various materials such as aluminum, silver, copper, molybdenum, chromium, tantalum, and a combination of these materials (see paragraphs [0037], [0028]). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the second upper metal film to be different from a material of the second lower metal film since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re claim 11, Lee discloses a display device comprising a display panel 100, the display panel having a display area AA and a non-display area N/A surrounding the display area AA (see paragraph [0054] and figs. 4-7C), the display panel comprising: a drive circuit unit 230 disposed in the non-display area N/A (see paragraph [0147] and figs. 4-7C); a control circuit unit 220 disposed in the non-display area N/A (see paragraph [0147] and figs. 4-7C); a first metal wire (146a, 146b) at least partially disposed in the display area AA (see paragraphs [0148], [0149], [0150] and figs. 4-7C); and a second metal wire 141c disposed in the non-display area N/A and electrically connecting the drive circuit unit 230 with the control circuit unit 220 (see paragraph [0157] and figs. 4-7C).
Lee is silent to wherein a thickness of the second metal wire is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire.
However, Kim discloses in a same field of endeavor, a display panel, including, inter-alia, a first metal wire 124 at least partially disposed in the display area and a second metal wire 121 (including a lower gate line 121a and an upper gate line 121b) disposed in the non-display area, wherein a thickness of the second metal wire (combination of the lower gate line 121a and the upper gate line 121b) is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire 124 (see paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0035] and figs. 2-8, note that, the first metal wire 124 and the lower gate line 121a may be formed using a same technique and having a same thickness, subsequently, the upper gate line 121b is formed on the lower gate line 121a using an electroless plating method constituting the second metal wire 121, see paragraph [0035], thus, it is inherent that the thickness of the second metal wire 121 is greater than the thickness of the first metal wire 124).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Kim into the display panel of Lee in order to enable wherein a thickness of the second metal wire is greater than a thickness of the first metal wire in Lee to be formed in order to lower resistance of the second metal wire and thus preventing the occurrence of signal delay or voltage drop in the display panel (see paragraph [0010] of Kim). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein number of metal films (121a,121b) of the second metal wire 121 is greater than number of metal film(s) of the first metal wire 124 (see paragraph [0030] and figs. 2-8 of Kim).
In re claim 13, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein at least a portion of the first metal wire 124 and at least a portion 121a of the second metal wire 121 are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraph [0035] and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
In re claim 14, as applied to claim 12 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein at least a portion of the first metal wire 124 and at least a portion 121a of the second metal wire 121 are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraph [0035[ and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
In re claim 15, as applied to claim 11 above, Lee in combination with Kim discloses wherein the first metal wire 124 comprises a first lower metal film 124; the second metal wire 121 comprises a second lower metal film 121a and a second upper metal film 121b, the second upper metal film 121b and the second lower metal film 121a are stacked; and wherein the first lower metal film 124 and the second lower metal film 121a are located in a same metal film and comprise a same material (see paragraphs [0032], [0035] and figs. 2-4 of Kim).
Lee and Kim are silent to wherein a material of the second upper metal film is different from a material of the second lower metal film.
However, Kim discloses that the second metal wire 121 can be formed of various materials such as aluminum, silver, copper, molybdenum, chromium, tantalum, and a combination of these materials (see paragraphs [0037], [0028]). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a material for the second upper metal film to be different from a material of the second lower metal film since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0187279) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0043545), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Park (U.S. Pub. 2014/0158995).
In re claims 10 and 20, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, Lee and Kim are silent to wherein the thickness of the first metal wire is greater than or equal to 1000 Angstroms and less than or equal to 5000 Angstroms, and the thickness of the second metal wire is greater than or equal to 3000 Angstroms and less than or equal to 6000 Angstroms.
However, Park discloses in a same field of endeavor a display panel including, inter-alia, wherein the thickness of the first metal wire is about 300 to about 1000 Angstroms and the thickness of the second metal wire is about 5000 to about 20000 Angstroms (see paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the teaching of Park into the display panel of Lee in order to optimize the thickness ranges of the first metal wire to be in a range of greater than or equal to 1000 Angstroms and less than or equal to 5000 Angstroms and the thickness range of the second metal wire to be greater than or equal to 3000 Angstroms and less than or equal to 6000 Angstroms during routine experimentation since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon et al. U.S. Pub. 2019/0267444 discloses a display panel having a display area DA and a non-display area PA and wirings PL over the non-display area PA that extend in a first 1A through third areas 3A (see paragraphs [0040], [0044] and figs. 1-3).
Yang (U.S. Pub. 2014/0159034) discloses display panel including a gate line formed on an insulating substrate 101, the gate line may have a single-layered structure using a low resistance metal material (see paragraph [0037] and fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892