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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lhee et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0229175 (as cited in previous Office Actio
Regarding claim 1, Lhee teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 having a display area PA and a peripheral area PA adjacent to the display area;
a first wiring (20, 30, 60, or 71) in the peripheral area on the substrate;
an insulating layer 107 on the first wiring and covering at least a portion of the first wiring;
a second wiring 70 on the insulating layer, overlapping at least a portion of the insulating layer in a plan view, and having an opening pattern exposing at least a portion of the insulating layer;
a first cladding part 80 (either sidewall portion of 80 or entire structure of 80) on the insulating layer and the second wiring to fill the opening pattern and exposing at least a portion of the second wiring; and
a second cladding part (which may be portion of 80 on top surface of 70, 72 and/or portion of 111) on the second wiring and covering at least a portion of the second wiring exposed from the first cladding part (figure 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lhee teaches the second cladding part contacts the first cladding part and the first cladding part is connected by the second cladding part (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lhee teaches the second cladding part is spaced apart from the opening pattern in the plan view (as shown in figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lhee teaches the first cladding part contacts the insulating layer (figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Lhee teaches the first cladding part and the second cladding (both of which is cladding layer 80) part are integrated as one body without a separate interface (figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Lhee teaches the first wiring 71 and the second wiring 70 contact each other to form a power voltage line, and the power voltage line transmits a power voltage to a light emitting element in the display area [0068].
Regarding claim 11, Lhee teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 having a display area DA and a peripheral area PA adjacent to the display area;
a first wiring (gate electrode in TFT-P or 20) in the peripheral area on the substrate;
an insulating layer 107 on the first wiring and covering at least a portion of the first wiring;
a second wiring 70 on the insulating layer, overlapping at least a portion of the insulating layer in a plan view, and having an opening pattern exposing at least a portion of the insulating layer;
a cladding film 80 on the insulating layer and the second wiring and covering the second wiring defining the opening pattern, and at least a portion of the cladding film is in the opening pattern; and
a cladding part 72 and/or potion of 111 on the cladding film and covering at least a portion of the cladding film, and at least a portion of the cladding part is in the opening pattern (figure 3).
Regarding claims 12 and 15-18, Lhee teaches the cladding part exposes at least a portion of the cladding film, the cladding part contacts the cladding film, wherein the cladding part (portion of 111) is in non-contact with the insulating layer by the cladding film, wherein the cladding film contacts the insulating layer in the opening pattern, and wherein the cladding film 80 includes an inorganic material [0100], and the cladding part (portion of 111) includes an organic material ([0119] and figure 3).
Regarding claims 19-20, Lhee teaches the first wiring 71 and the second wiring 70 contact each other to form a power voltage line, wherein the power voltage line is configured to transmit a power voltage to a light emitting element in the display area [0068].
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) 2, 3, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent 10,043,449
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, Lee fails to teach a thickness of the second cladding part is smaller than a thickness of the first cladding part, wherein a height from an upper surface of the insulating layer to an upper surface of the second cladding part is smaller than a height from the upper surface of the insulating layer to an upper surface of the first cladding part, wherein a thickness of the cladding film is smaller than a thickness of the cladding part and wherein a height from an upper surface of the insulating layer to an upper surface of the cladding film is smaller than a height from the upper surface of the insulating layer to an upper surface of the cladding part.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 9, Lhee teaches the first cladding part and the second cladding part include an organic material (Note: [0100] of Lhee teaches that layer 80 may be formed as a separate layer and may include the same material as the other insulating layers disposed on the common power supply wire. Since layer 111 is partially formed on one portion of 70 and is made of an organic material [0119], it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that cladding layer 80may be made of an organic material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to Applicant’s argument that “The Office Action does not identify a single, consistent disclosure in Lhee corresponding to the claimed first cladding part and second cladding part”, the reference of Lhee meets the limitations pertaining to “a first cladding part” and “a second cladding part”. A first instance that Lhee meets this limitation is shown in figure A below where the first cladding part and the second cladding part are on separate sides of the second wiring. It is noted that in this broadest, reasonable interpretation, the first cladding part and second cladding part are two distinct structures since they on different sides of the second wiring structure.
A second instance is that layer 80 is the first cladding part and layers 72 or 111 is the second cladding part, also shown in the figure below. It is also noted that layers 80, 72, and 111 have separate and distinct structures that meet the limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
262
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lhee discloses layer 80 as a cladding part, but does not disclose layers 72 or 111 as cladding parts. However, layers 72 or 111 of Lhee meet the claimed limitation of “on the second wiring and covering at least a portion of the second wiring exposed from the first cladding part”, thereby meeting the limitations pertaining to “a second cladding part”. While the materials of layer 72 and 111 are not similar to Applicant’s cladding layer, it is noted that the materials of the first and second cladding part are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 11, in response to Applicant’s argument that Lhee does not disclose an arrangement of two distinct claimed structures of the cladding film and a cladding part of the cladding film, wherein at least a portion of the cladding film is in the opening pattern and at least a portion of the cladding part is likewise in the opening pattern”, as shown in figure above, layer 80, the cladding film, is located in opening pattern. Cladding part 72 and/or potion of 111, which is on cladding layer film 80 and covers a portion of the cladding film 80. Cladding part 72 is also in the opening pattern as well. As stated above, while Lhee does not specifically recite 72 or 111 as a cladding film or part, layers 72 and 111 still meet the limitations of the claim presented.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Lhee and the other claims as being unpatentable over the cited prior art of record is maintained.
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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
