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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 27, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2, claims 8-16, in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “both Claim 1 and Claim 8 require the same core technical solution: a silver nanowire (AgNW) layer at least disposed on the lateral end surface to connect corresponding terminals, then using UV-laser sintering to fuse contacting nanowires and improve electrical/adhesion performance, and patterning the layer into connection wires. This common special technical feature (STF) is the inventive concept that solves the disclosed problems (e.g., impedance and detachment issues in lateral-side conductive interconnects for spliced modules). Because the Groups 1-2 share this same STF, they are linked by a single general inventive concept and have substantially the same body of technical features.” This is not found persuasive because the reference of CN 113437025 in view of CN 113744927 discloses at least a spliced display panel, comprising a first sub-display panel and a second sub-display panel spliced with each other, the first sub-display panel comprising: a substrate to be processed, wherein the substrate to be processed comprises a first surface, a second surface, and a lateral end surface disposed between the first surface and the second surface, the first surface is provided with a first connection terminal, and the second surface is provided with a second connection terminal corresponding to the first connection terminal; a first protective layer at least disposed on the first surface, the first protective layer non- overlapping with the first connection terminal; a silver nanowire layer at least disposed on the lateral end surface of the substrate to be processed, wherein the silver nanowire layer is connected to the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal; the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser; and a plurality of connection wires patterned by the silver nanowire layer, wherein the connection wires are connected between the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal corresponding to the first connection terminal, wherein the second connection terminal of the first sub-display panel is electrically connected to a driving chip.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11-14 and 16 depend upon independent claim 8, which pertains to a device claim. Claims 11-14 and 16 recite method steps. It is unclear if claims 11-14 and 16 are device claims or method claims. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected based upon its dependency on rejected claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11-14 and 16 depend upon independent claim 8, which pertains to a device claim. Claims 11-14 and 16 recite method steps. It is unclear if claims 11-14 and 16 are device claims or method claims. It is further unclear how claim 11-14 and 16 further limit the subject matter of independent claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected based on its dependency on rejected claim 14.
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) 8-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 113437025) in view of Liu et al (CN 113744927).
In re claim 8, Jiang discloses a spliced display panel (i.e. see at least Figures 1-12; paragraphs 0033-0067), comprising a first sub-display panel and a second sub-display panel spliced with each other, the first sub-display panel comprising: a substrate (i.e. 10) to be processed, wherein the substrate to be processed comprises a first surface (i.e. 11), a second surface (i.e. 12), and a lateral end surface (i.e. 13) disposed between the first surface and the second surface, the first surface is provided with a first connection terminal (i.e. 110), and the second surface is provided with a second connection terminal (i.e. 120) corresponding to the first connection terminal; a first protective layer (i.e. 210) at least disposed on the first surface, the first protective layer non- overlapping with the first connection terminal; and a plurality of connection wires (i.e. 300), wherein the connection wires are connected between the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal corresponding to the first connection terminal (i.e. see at least step S300), wherein the second connection terminal (i.e. 120) of the first sub-display panel is electrically connected to a driving chip (i.e. see at least paragraph 0019).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose a silver nanowire layer; and the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser.
However, Liu et al discloses a silver nanowire layer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0013); and the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser (i.e. see at least paragraph 0033).
The advantage is to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks (i.e. see at least paragraph 0004).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the spliced display panel as taught by Jiang with a silver nanowire layer and the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser as taught by Liu et al in order to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 9, Jiang discloses further comprising a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in an array on the first sub-display panel and the second sub-display panel (i.e. see at least paragraph 0066).
In re claim 10, Jiang discloses wherein the micro LEDs are used as a backlight source of the spliced display panel or as sub-pixels for displaying images (i.e. see at least paragraph 0066).
In re claim 11, Jiang, as discussed above, does not explicitly wherein before the step of sintering the silver nanowire layer with the ultraviolet laser, the silver nanowire layer comprises a plurality of silver nanowires; and after the step of sintering the silver nanowire layer with the ultraviolet laser, the silver nanowires that are in contact with each other are fused together.
However, Liu et al discloses a silver nanowire layer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0013); the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser (i.e. see at least paragraph 0033); and the silver nanowires are fused together (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0011, 0031).
The advantage is to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks (i.e. see at least paragraph 0004).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the spliced display panel as taught by Jiang with a silver nanowire layer, the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser, and the silver nanowires are fused together as taught by Liu et al in order to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 12, Jiang, as discussed above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of patterning the silver nanowire layer to form the plurality of connection wires is performed by using laser irradiation.
However, Liu et al discloses performing laser irradiation on the silver nanowire layer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0033).
The advantage is to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks (i.e. see at least paragraph 0004).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the spliced display panel as taught by Jiang with performing laser irradiation on the silver nanowire layer as taught by Liu et al in order to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 13, Jiang discloses a second protective layer (i.e. 220) on the second surface, the second protective layer non-overlapping with the second connection terminal (i.e. 120) (i.e. see at least Figures 1-12).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 14, Jiang discloses the use of at least coating to form the first protective layer (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0013, 0049; step S200).
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 16, Jiang, as discussed above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of forming the silver nanowire layer at least on the lateral end surface of the substrate to be processed further comprises forming the silver nanowire layer on the first connection terminal of the first surface and the second connection terminal of the second surface.
However, Liu et al discloses a silver nanowire layer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0013); and the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser (i.e. see at least paragraph 0033).
The advantage is to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks (i.e. see at least paragraph 0004).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the spliced display panel as taught by Jiang with a silver nanowire layer and the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser as taught by Liu et al in order to obtain a fully fused conductive network through simple process, low energy consumption, and sufficient fusion that will significantly improve the photoelectric performance of metal nanowire networks.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights