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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election, without traverse, Species I-4 (of Invention I) drawn to the display device shown in Fig. 17 and Claims 1-7 and 9-11 in the Response to Restriction Requirements filed 06/24/26 has been acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 8 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show area AA in Fig. 18 as described in paragraph 0192 of the published application, US 2024/0371889. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claim:
“the light emitting element is included in a plurality of sub-pixels” – e.g., a single light emitting element disposed in a plurality of sub-pixels - as Claim 11 recites.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure, including Abstract, is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract and at least paragraphs 0008, 0024, 0114, 0206 recite that “a groove is formed on a lower surface of a substrate”. However, a surface is an element having two dimensions, while a groove is an element having three dimensions. Examiner suggests changing the recitations to either: “a groove is passing through a lower surface of the substrate into the substrate” or to: “a lower surface of a substrate has a portion in an arc shape”.
Abstract and at least paragraphs 0008, 0024 and 0180 recite that a valley is formed on a lower surface of the substrate; the recitation is objected to for the same reason as shown above for the groove.
Multiple paragraphs of the specification have a statement: “an interval corresponding”, after which a name of an element is followed. However, an interval, in the context of the specification, is a dimension, and a dimension shall correspond to a dimension, not to a name of an element, such as: “an interval corresponding to a length of (or: “a dimension of”) a pixel”, etc.
Paragraph 0018 of a summary of the published application states that a (single) light-emitting element is included in a plurality of sub-pixels, which contradicts to multiple other paragraphs of a detailed description of the application (such as paragraphs 0082, 0083, 0097, 0097, etc.) teaching that one sub-pixel includes at least one light-emitting device and not teaching that a single light-emitting device is included in a plurality of sub-pixels. Correction of paragraph 0018 is essential, since Claim 11 has a limitation corresponding to paragraph 0018 and contradicting to multiple other paragraphs of the application.
A few paragraphs of the specification teach that “a groove has a curved surface” and “a conductive pattern has a curved surface corresponding to the groove”. However, the statement contradicts with drawings of the application, showing that a conductive pattern has a curved surface corresponding to a portion of a curved surface of the groove, not to the entire groove. A conflict between the specification and figures of the application shall be resolved.
Paragraph 0154 of the published application recites in the third sentence that a length of a light emitting element is hundreds of meters.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites (line 2): “a substrate including a groove on a lower surface”. The recitation is unclear since a surface is a two-dimensional element while a groove is a three-dimensional element.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “a substrate including a groove passing through a lower surface”.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites (lines 11-12): “a first valley different from the groove is further formed on the lower surface of the substrate”. The recitation is unclear for the same reason that is provided above for the groove, and for this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “a first valley different from the groove is further formed through the lower surface of the substrate”.
In re Claim 5: Claim 5 recites: “the first valley extends in a first direction and is repeatedly arranged in a second direction with an interval corresponding to the light emitting element”. The recitation is not quite clear, since Claim 5 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “a first valley”, and an article “the” in Claim 5 means that the same valley that was cited by Claim 1 is repeatedly arranged, but the structure of the current application just comprises multiple identical valleys, not the one. In addition, it is unclear what a statement of: “an interval corresponding to the light emitting element” means.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 5 was interpreted as: “the first valley is one of a plurality of first valleys of a first set that extends in a first direction and where two adjacent first valleys are separated in a second direction with an interval corresponding to a linear size of the light emitting element”.
In re Claim 6: Claim 6 recites: “The display device according to claim 5, wherein in a plan view, the first valley is arranged in a mesh structure over an entire area of the substrate”. The recitation is unclear, since a single valley/line (of an original Claim 5), as well as a plurality of multiple parallel first valleys/lines (cited by Claim 5, as interpreted) cannot create a mesh – a mesh is known as a structure having at least two sets of lines, each set extends in a direction different from another set.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, based on paragraph 0183 of the published application, the cited recitation of Claim 6 was interpreted as: “The display device according to claim 5 wherein the plurality of first valleys has a second set of first valleys similar to the first set, but extending in the second direction and separated from each other in the first direction, wherein, in a plan view, the first set of first valleys and the second set of first valleys create a mesh structure over an entire area of the substrate”.
In re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites: “the groove includes a curved surface, and the conductive pattern includes a curved surface corresponding to the groove”. The recitation is unclear, since conflicts with such part of the specification as its drawings, showing that the conductive pattern includes a curved surface corresponding to a portion of the curved surface of the groove, but not to the entire groove.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 9 was interpreted as: “the groove includes a curved surface, and the conductive pattern includes a curved surface corresponding to a portion of the curved surface of the groove”.
In re Claim 11: Claim 11 recites: “the light emitting element is included in a plurality of sub-pixels”, which contradicts to multiple paragraphs (e.g., to paragraphs 0082, 0083, 0087, 0097, 0100, etc.) of the detailed description of the application (as shown in the objection to the specification), contradicts to multiple figures of the application and contradicts to a method of the device manufacturing.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited paragraph is interpreted as: “the display device comprises a plurality of sub-pixels and each of the plurality includes at least one light emitting element”
In re Claim 11: Claim 11 recites: “the groove is repeatedly arranged with an interval corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sub-pixels in a first direction”. The recitation is unclear for two reasons: Initially, Claim 11 depends on Claim 1 which recites: “a/the groove”, and article “the” with “groove” – in Claim 11 – means that it refers to the groove of Claim 1, but the same groove cannot be repeatedly arranged: multiple identical grooves can be disposed in the substrate with a chosen interval between adjacent grooves. In addition, “an interval” cannot be compared to a sub-pixel, it can be compared to a sub-pixel length/width/height.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 11 is interpreted as: “the groove is one of a plurality of grooves arranged with an interval between adjacent grooves corresponding to a length of at least one sub-pixel in a first direction”
In re Claims 2-4, 7, and 10: Claims 2-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0341566) in view of Lai et al. (CN 110752223).
In re Claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (Abstract) comprising (Figs. 5-7):
a substrate 300/400/110 (paragraphs 0053, 0080) including a groove G1 (paragraph 0063) on a lower surface;
a first insulating layer 221 (paragraph 0083) disposed on the substrate 300/400/110;
a transistor Qd (Fig. 7, paragraph 0085) disposed on the first insulating layer 221;
a second insulating layer 230 (Fig. 7) disposed on the substrate 300/400/10 and covering the transistor Qd; and
a light emitting element LD (Fig. 7, paragraph 0087) disposed on the second insulating layer 230,
a first valley G2 (Fig. 5, paragraph 0063) different from the groove G1 is further formed on the lower surface of the substrate 300/400/110
Lee does not teach a conductive pattern disposed in the groove of the substrate;
a bridge pattern disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the conductive pattern through a contact hole passing through the substrate; Lee further does not teach that the first insulating layer covers the bridge pattern, the bridge pattern electrically connected to the transistor or the light emitting element, wherein the conductive pattern is not disposed in the first valley.
Lai teaches (Figs. 1-2 and Annotated Fig. 1) a conductive pattern 130 disposed in a groove 111 of a substrate 110 and connected to a driving chip (page 7, paragraphs 4-5), a bridge pattern 150 disposed on the substrate 110 and electrically connected to the conductive pattern 130 through a contact hole 162 passing through the substrate 110 (page 11, paragraphs 2-3), wherein a first insulating layer – FIL, as in Annotated Fig. 1 covers the bridge pattern 150 (layer FIL is obviously insulating, otherwise, all transistors disposed on this layer would be short-circuiting), the bridge pattern 150 electrically connected to the transistor or the light emitting element (page 7, paragraph 6), wherein the conductive pattern is disposed only in the groove and is not disposed in any additional groove or a valley.
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
353
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee and Lai teach analogous arts directed to display panels comprising a substrate with a groove, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lee device in view of the Lai device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Lai created a successfully operating device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lee device by disposing in its groove (and not in the first valley) a conductive pattern connected to a bridge that would be covered by the first insulating layer and connected to the transistor or to the light-emitting device, wherein it is desirable to use the groove for connection to a driving chip, reducing by that an additional space needed for driving circuits in the display and reducing a gap between the bridge and the conductive pattern (Lai, Abstract).
In re Claim 2, Lee/Lai teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein Lee teaches that the substrate is a flexible substrate (Lee, paragraphs 0003, 0061, 0062, 0080).
In re Claim 3, Lee/Lai teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein the conductive pattern is disposed in the groove and is not disposed in the first valley.
Although Lee teaches creating the groove and the first valley in a same shape, since the Lee/Lai structure differs from the structure of Lee, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create the groove and the first valley in different shapes, wherein the conductive pattern used per Lai requires a space larger than is needed for the first valley used with the only purpose of allowing bending the device at a position of the first valley.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lai in view of Bang et al. (US 2020/0401273).
In re Claim 4, Lee/Lai teaches the display device of Claim 3 as cited above, but does not teach that in a cross-sectional view the groove has a semicircular shape, and the first valley has a triangular shape.
Bang teaches (Fig. 8C, paragraph 0227) that a groove and a valley (both called “recesses”) may have a triangular shape or a semicircular shape.
Lee/Lai and Bang teach analogous arts directed to displays comprised grooves and valleys, and one of ordinary skill in the arty before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lee/Lai device in view of the Bang teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Bang created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lee/Lai structure by creating the groove having a semicircular shape while creating the first valley in the triangular view - in a cross-sectional view, if such shapes are chosen by the manufacturer. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee/Lai in view of Um et al. (US 2018/0090702).
In re Claim 9, Lee/Lai teaches the display device of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that the groove includes a curved surface, and the conductive pattern includes a curved surface corresponding to the groove.
Um teaches (Fig. 7, paragraphs 0095-0096) a groove with a curved surface created in a structure of 150/320, and a conductive pattern 330 includes a curved surface corresponding to at least a portion of the curved surface of the groove.
Lee/Lai and Um teach analogous arts directed to displays, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lee/Lai device in view of the Um device, since they are from the same field of endeavor and Um created a successfully operated device.
Although a combination of a groove and a conductive pattern in the Lee/Lai structure and in the Um structure - belong to different parts of the display, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lee/Lai structure by creating the groove with a curved surface and to create the conductive pattern corresponding to the curved portion of the groove, if such shapes of the groove and the conductive pattern are desired by the manufacturer. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In addition, that See MPEP 2141 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (G): Some Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation in the Prior Art that Would have Led One of Ordinary Skill to Modify the Prior Art Reference or to Combine Prior Art Reference Teachings to Arrive at the Claimed Invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
As far as the claims are interpreted, Claims 5, 7, 10, and 11 contain allowable subject matter, while Claim 6 depends on Claim 5.
Reason for Identification of Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 5: Although Lee teaches an embodiment (Figs. 22-25) of a display comprised a plurality of display panels each being similar to that of Figs. 5-7, the display that obviously comprises a plurality of first valleys, Lee does not teach that “two adjacent first valleys are separated in a second direction with an interval corresponding to a linear size of the light emitting element” (e.g., as interpreted). Other prior arts of record do not cure the above deficiency.
Re Claim 7: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “a second valley different from the opening are formed in the pixel defining layer”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 7 and with all combinations of Claim 1, as interpreted.
Re Claim 10: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “at least a portion of the groove is defined by a lower surface of the conductive pattern”, in combination with limitations of Claims 9 and 1, on which Claim 10 depends.
Re Claim 11: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of the claim as: “the groove is one of a plurality of grooves arranged with an interval between adjacent grooves corresponding to a length of at least one sub-pixel in a first direction” (e.g., as interpreted), in combination with other limitation of Claim 11 and with all limitations of Claim 1, on which Claim 11 depends.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action above, also include: Di et al. (US 2021/0305283), Hong et al. (US 2020/0259056), Jiang et al. (US 2025/0133910), and Lee et al. (US 2021/0202900).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 06/30/26
Prosecution Insights