DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to amendment to application no. 18/558,196 filed on August 17, 2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are presented for examination.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-7 stand withdrawn.
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 .
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) 8-11, 13, 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; the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser; and 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 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 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 a silver nanowire layer, the silver nanowire layer sintered by an ultraviolet laser, and 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). More particularly, the phrase “using laser irradiation” is product-by-process language.
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 the silver nanowire layer, prior to the ultraviolet laser sintering, comprises a plurality of silver nanowires, and the silver nanowires that are in contact with each other are fused together after the ultraviolet laser sintering..
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 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 silver nanowire layer on the silver nanowire layer is further disposed 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 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Liu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Liu, is at least, in the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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.
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