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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0358642 A1 Jo et al (herein “Jo”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jo discloses:
A display device (unless otherwise specified see generic device shown in cross-section view in Fig. 10 top-down view in Fig. 11 and zoomed in cross-sectional view in Figs. 12A/12B, other embodiments of cross-section view of pad structure shown in Figs. 12b, 14b, 16b, and 25-26) comprising:
a base layer (#301, Fig. 10) including a display area (#DA, Fig. 10) and a non-display area (#PA, Fig. 10) adjacent to the display area (#DA);
insulating layers (#331, #332, Fig. 10) disposed on the base layer (#301);
pixels (#OLED, Fig. 10) disposed in the display area (#DA);
pads (#1200, Fig. 12B) connected to the pixels (#OLED), arranged in a first direction, and disposed in the non-display area (#PA); and
a driving chip (#510, Fig. 12B) connected to the pads (#1200), wherein each of side pads (#1220, Fig. 12B) arranged at opposite ends in the first direction among the pads includes:
a first conductive pattern (#1120);
a first insulating pattern (#1220) including protruding patterns (protrude upwards in Figs. 10/12B), which protrude in a direction toward the driving chip (#510, Fig. 12B); and
a second insulating pattern (#1210) disposed on the first insulating pattern (#1220).
Regarding Claim 4, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Jo further discloses:
wherein each of the side pads (#1220) further includes a second conductive pattern (#1110) covering the second insulating pattern (#1210) and a portion of the first insulating pattern (#1220) exposed from the second insulating pattern (#1210).
Regarding Claim 5, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 4,
Jo further discloses:
wherein the second conductive pattern (#1110) includes first to third conductive layers ([0221]) that are sequentially laminated, and the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer include titanium, and the second conductive layer includes aluminum ([0099], [0216]).
Regarding Claim 6, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Jo further discloses:
wherein the first conductive pattern (#1120) covers the second insulating pattern (#1210) and a portion of the first insulating pattern (#1220) exposed from the second insulating pattern (#1210).
Regarding Claim 7, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Jo further
wherein the first conductive pattern (#1120) covers the second insulating pattern (#1210) and a portion of the first insulating pattern (#1220) exposed from the second insulating pattern (#1210), and each of the side pads (#1220) further includes a second conducive pattern (##1110) covering the first conductive pattern (#1120).
Regarding Claim 16, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1,
Jo further discloses:
wherein a non-conductive film (NCF) (#530, Fig. 12B) is disposed between the driving chip (#510) and the pads (#1220).
Regarding Claim 17, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 16,
wherein the driving chip (#510) includes a base film (#510) and bumps (#520, 540) protruding from the base film (#510) and connected to the pads (#1220).
Regarding Claim 18, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1,
wherein the pads (#1220) and the driving chip (#510) are curved with a predetermined curvature with respect to the first direction (see Fig, 12B).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0358642 A1 Jo et al in view of US 2023/0247874 A1 Youk et al (herein “Youk”).
Regarding Claim 10, Jo discloses: The display device of claim 1, Jo further discloses wherein the first insulating pattern comprises an organic material but does not explicitly teach a polymer.
However, in analogous art, Youk teaches:
wherein the first insulating pattern and the second insulating pattern include an organic material (see [0123]: “According to an embodiment, at least one of the first sensing insulating layer IS-IL1 to the third sensing insulating layer IS-IL3 may be an organic layer. For example, the third sensing insulating layer IS-IL3 may include the organic layer. The organic layer may include at least one of, for example, an acrylic-based resin, a methacrylic-based resin, a polyisoprene-based resin, a vinyl-based resin, an epoxy-based resin, a urethane-based resin, a cellulose-based resin, a siloxane-based resin, a polyimide-based resin, a polyamide-based resin, and a perylene-based resin.”, and [0155]: “The insulating pattern SP may include a polymer. The insulating pattern SP may include a heat-curable polymer. However, embodiments are not limited thereto.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Youk to the device disclosed by Jo and form the first insulating pattern using a polymer material. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known electrically insulating material for another to achieve a predictable result of providing a insulating molding compound with the characteristic of preventing electrical leakage to the surrounding area within the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20 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.
Regarding Claim 2: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein the protruding patterns have an integral shape in which lower portions of the protruding patterns are connected, a valley recessed in a direction toward the base layer is defined between the protruding patterns, and the second insulating pattern overlaps the valley in a plan view.”
Regarding Claim 3: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein two valleys recessed in a direction toward the base layer are defined between the protruding patterns, the second insulating pattern further includes sub-protruding patterns, which protrude in the direction toward the driving chip and overlap the two valleys in a plan view, respectively, one sub-valley recessed in the direction toward the base layer is defined between the sub-protruding patterns, and each of the side pads further includes a third insulating pattern disposed on the second insulating pattern and overlapping the sub-valley in the plan view.”
Regarding Claim 8: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein the first insulating pattern includes a positive photoresist (PR), and the second insulating pattern includes one of the positive photoresist (PR) and a negative photoresist (PR).”
Regarding Claim 9: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein the first insulating pattern includes a negative photoresist (PR), and the second insulating pattern includes the negative photoresist (PR).”
Regarding Claim 11: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein each of central pads arranged between the side pads among the pads includes: a third conductive pattern; an insulating pattern having a convex shape, which protrudes in the direction toward the driving chip; and a fourth conductive pattern covering the insulating pattern.”
Regarding Claim 12: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein the insulating layers include a barrier layer disposed on the base layer, a buffer layer disposed on the barrier layer, and first to fifth insulating layers arranged on the buffer layer, and each of the third to fifth insulating layers exposes the second insulating layer in the non-display area, and the first conductive pattern is disposed on the second insulating layer.”
Regarding Claims 13-15: Claims 13-15 are dependent on objected to but allowable claim 12, and is also objected to but allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 12.
Regarding Claim 19: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein, in the first direction, a width of the first insulating pattern is in a range of about 5 micrometers (μm) to about 8 μm, and a width of the second insulating pattern is in a range of about 1 μm to about 4 μm.”
Regarding Claim 20: The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein a thickness of the second insulating pattern measured from an uppermost end of the first insulating pattern is 30% or less of a maximum thickness of the first insulating pattern.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights