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. Information Disclosure Statement As of March 25, 2026, no information disclosure statement has been made of record. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0084014 A1) (“Kim”), in view of Zhuang et al. (US 2012/0300165 A1) (“Zhuang”). Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches: a pixel (region II can be considered a pixel and each of the LD can be considered a subpixel) including (detailed below) a first sub-pixel (LD1) , a second sub-pixel (LD2) , and a third sub-pixel (LD3) , each including a storage capacitor ( Cst ) and disposed adjacent to each other (each pixel shown in figure 1 is adjacent) ; a data wire (171) electrically connected to the first to third sub-pixels (This is shown in figure 1) ; a first power wire (172) supplying a voltage of a first driving power source to the first to third sub-pixels (this is shown in figure 3) ; and a dummy wire (100/171’/171”) disposed to be spaced apart from the first power wire (172) , wherein the dummy wire (100/171’/171”) includes (detailed below) : a first dummy wire (100) disposed between the storage capacitor of one of the first to third sub-pixels and the storage capacitor of an adjacent one of the first to third sub-pixels (This is shown in figure 3) ; and a second dummy wire (171’ or 171”) disposed between the data wire (171) and the storage capacitor ( Cst ) of each of the first to third sub-pixels (while not explicitly shown in the drawings it would have been obvious as the drawings only show a partial view of the display array) , and Kim does not expressly teach: the first power wire, the first dummy wire, and the second dummy wire are electrically connected to each other. Zhuang teaches: That the repair lines 206/207 can be used to repair any broken wire as shown in figure 3, and 5-6. This includes broken repair wires. Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhuang with the teachings of Kim and use the dummy/repair lines to repair any of the lines broken during the manufacturing of the display pane l. This is because there is nothing inherently different about using repair wires to reroute a bad pixel/subpixel and using repair wires to reroute around a broken wire. Both are directed to using extra wires to fix the device rather than throwing it away, or completely reworking the underlying substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to use the dummy/repair lines of Kim to fix power lines which were broken during manufacture of the display. Claim(s) 2 , and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Zhuang , in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0331171 A1) (“Kim II”). Regarding claim 2, Kim and Zhuang do not teach: a first insulating layer, a second insulating layer, a third insulating layer, and a fourth insulating layer sequentially disposed on a substrate, wherein the first power wire includes: a first vertical power wire configured of a first conductive layer disposed on the substrate; and a first horizontal power wire configured of a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer, the first horizontal power wire extends in a first direction, the first vertical power wire extends in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and the first vertical power wire and the first horizontal power wire are electrically connected to each other. Kim II teaches at least in figures 4, 7, and 15-16: a first insulating layer (Il2) , a second insulating layer (IL31) , a third insulating layer (IL32) , and a fourth insulating layer (IL4) sequentially disposed on a substrate (sub) , wherein the first power wire (PL) includes: a first vertical power (PL1) wire configured of a first conductive layer disposed on the substrate (sub) ; and a first horizontal power wire (PL22 of PL2) configured of a second conductive layer disposed on the second insulating layer (IL31) , the first horizontal power (PL22) wire extends in a first direction (PL22 so extends) , the first vertical power wire (PL1) extends in a second direction (PL1 so extends) intersecting the first direction (PL2 and PL22 so intersect) , and the first vertical power wire and the first horizontal power wire are electrically connected to each other (¶ 0215) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add horizontal and vertical power lines to Kim as it would make it possible to reduce or prevent dark spots on the power lines due to disconnections, ¶ 0216, as shown by Zhuang . Regarding claim 16 , Kim and Zhuang do not teach: Claim 16 is considered a duplication of parts. Here the duplication of parts is the second power wire with a second vertical power wire and a second horizontal wire. Under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), even if the prior art is silent with the number of power lines, “ mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced ”. In reJapikse , 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950) . There does not appear to be a new or unexpected result as a result of duplicating the power lines. Thus, this claim is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) . Regarding claim 17, Kim II teaches: wherein the first horizontal power wire (PL22) includes a first sub-wire (PL22) and a second sub-wire spaced (PL21) apart from each other in the first direction (they are so spaced out) , and the first sub-wire (PL22) is electrically connected to the first vertical power wire (PL1) (¶ 0215) The combination of references teaches: the second sub-wire is electrically connected to the second dummy wire (This is the purpose of the dummy/repair wires in Zhuang. Where one can connect the repair/dummy wires of Kim on an as needed basis to reroute any wire that is broken. Therefore, this would have been obvious based upon the references) . Regarding claim 18, wherein the storage capacitor (Kim Cst ) of another pixel (Kim another LD) disposed adjacent to the pixel (Kim a further part of the display array) in the second direction extends to an area between the first sub-wire and the second sub-wire (Kim II) ( this is considered a rearrangement of parts under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). This is because the particular placement of parts has been held to an obvious matter of design choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand and know semiconductor layout design. Further, they would know the have limited space in the x and y planes, and are would be further constricted by the semiconductor process layout rules. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art known the above references would use their routine skill in the art and make design choices based upon the process rules and requirements and route the wires as needed. As such this limitation is obvious based upon routine and ordinary choices one makes in semiconductor design. Regarding claim 19 , Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim s 1 -2, 16, and 18 above. The difference between claim 20 and claim 1 is the first through third data wire. However, the first data wire through third data wire in claim 1 can be read upon element 220a-c. The remainder of the claim elements reads upon the limitations contained in the aforementioned claims. Regarding claim 20 , Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above. The difference between claim 20 and claim 2 is the mesh shape in a plan view. This element is taught by Kim II in at least figure 16. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 -1 5 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, The prior art does not teach: wherein the first dummy wire and the second dummy wire are configured of the first conductive layer, and the first vertical power wire, the first dummy wire, and the second dummy wire are disposed on a same layer. The prior art shows that perhaps the first dummy wire and the first vertical power wire are configured of the first conductive layer, but not that all three of the required wires are disposed on the same layer. This is because as can be seen from Kim figure 1, and Zhuang figure 2, the second dummy wire is horizontal and detached from the first vertical power wire and the first dummy wire. These three wires may be electrically connected to each other, but they will be electrically connected at different elevations. They will not be disposed on the same layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9567 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jessica Manno can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898