CTNF 18/692,942 CTNF 101644 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 1 is 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. In the present case, it is unclear if lines 9-11 of claim 1 refer to a plurality of pads connected in a row which are electrically connected to metal bumps (which are provided on an electronic component), via an anisotropic conductive film, or to a plurality of pad arranged in a pad column which are electrically connected to a plurality of bumps, in which the metal bumps are provided on an electronic component and adhered to the electronic component via an anisotropic conductive film. The examiner notes that these interpretations are amenable to two structurally different inventions. As set forth in In re Miyazaki , “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008). For the purposes of this action, the anisotropic film will be interpreted as providing an electric connection between the plurality of pads and the metal bumps. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 examiner notes that translations of foreign patent literature documents art relied upon in this action. Hereafter, all paragraph numbers, quotations, and figure numbers of foreign patent documents in this action refer to the translations thereof attached to this action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7, 13-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (WO 2021079412 A1) in view of Jung (JP 2006227616 A) . Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches, in FIG. 1, a display device comprising a display region D, and FIG. 5 teaches a frame region F, which is provided around the display area (line VI-VI of FIG. 1, see First Embodiment paragraph 1). FIG. 1 shows that the frame region is provided with a terminal portion, T. FIG. 14 teaches a resin substrate 10 in the terminal portion, as well as a plurality of insulating films (13, 15, 17) above the resin substrate; First Embodiment, paragraph 12 states “[t]he first interlayer insulating film 13, the second interlayer insulating film 15, the third interlayer insulating film 17, and the fourth interlayer insulating film 20a described later are, for example, inorganic insulating films . . .” (inorganic layered film). FIG. 13 teaches a pad column including a plurality of “terminals” (pads) C, arranged in a row. FIG. 14 teaches an anisotropic conductive film 70 on the pad column and a flexible printed circuit board (electronic component) 60. FIG. 14 further teaches a “first flattening film” 19a above the pad column which is organic (First Embodiment paragraph 17 and Modification example 4, paragraph 6), and covers an end portion of each of the plurality of pads. Okabe does not teach that the pad column is electrically connected to a plurality of bumps on the electronic component via the anisotropic conductive film, or an opening in the flattening film exposing the inorganic layered film. Jung teaches, in FIG. 8 a display device with “flexible circuit board” (electronic component) 460 comprising output pad (metal bumps) 462 thereon. This is electrically connected via “anisotropic conductive material” (anisotropic conductive film) 481 to a row of pads (labeled IP). Additionally, FIG. 7 teaches “via hole” (opening) VH1 in the “organic insulating film” (flattening film) 150 which covers the end portion of each of the pads, the opening exposing “insulating layer” (insulating film) 122, which is inorganic (Best Mode paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the display deice taught by Okabe such that the flattening film comprises an opening exposing the inorganic flattening film, and that the plurality of pads in the pad columns are electrically connected to the electronic component via the anisotropic conductive film and a plurality of metal pads, as taught by Jung. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, to increase the yield of manufacturing the device (as the bumps increase connection area) and to utilize the via hole because it “prevents the anisotropic conductive film 480 from being separated” (Jung, best mode paragraph 68). Regarding claim 2, Jung further teaches, in FIG. 8, that the opening (VH1) does not overlap the each of the plurality of pads in a plan view. It would have been obvious to further modify the display device taught by Okabe such that the opening does not overlap the pads in a plan view, as taught by Jung. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the bond between the inorganic layered film and the bumps are directly bonded, increasing the device’s durability. Regarding claim 3, Jung further teaches, in FIG. 8, that the opening is formed across an entire region between the portions of the flattening film covering the end portion of each of the plurality of pads. It would have been obvious to further modify the display device taught by Okabe such that the opening is formed between the portions of the flattening film that cover the sides of the pads. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, reinforce the area around the pads (as the adhesion to the anisotropic conductive film is weaker on the pads than it is to the inorganic layered film), increasing durability. Regarding claim 4, the examiner notes that the nature of the microelectronic display device taught by Jung implies that the structure that includes the opening will be implemented in the plural. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the displace device taught by Okabe as to replicate the opening taught by Jung such that it is implemented in the plural. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, replicate the durability-improving effects of the opening taught above for another pair of pads (another set of pads is taught by Okabe, see FIG. 13). Regarding claim 5, Jung further teaches, in FIG. 10, a slit mask 700, having a slit portion SA which forms the opening (VH1, also see FIG. 11 for the next step, showing the complete formation of the opening, noting that it extends in the direction of the electrodes IP). The examiner notes that a slit-shaped mask will form a slit-shaped opening. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Okabe such that the opening is formed in a slit shape extending in a direction of the pad column (neighboring columns), as taught by Okabe. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the opening allows for the anisotropic film makes contact with the inorganic layering film without having the opening extend into the region between columns, ensuring that other components can be included in this space. Regarding claim 6, Okabe further teaches, in FIG. 13, that the pad columns are separated from one another. Okabe does not teach that the opening is formed between the plurality of the pad columns. As explained above, Jung teaches and motivates the formation of opening between adjacent pads (the examiner notes that this teaching applies generally to two adjacent columns, not only columns that are of the same column). It would have been obvious to further modify the device taught by Okabe such that the pad columns have an opening between them, as taught by Jung (and is explained above) in order to garner the benefits taught by Jung (also explained above). Regarding claim 7, Okabe further teaches, in FIG. 13, that the plurality of pads are two pad columns in which the plurality of pads are arranged in a zig-zag shape in a plan view. Regarding claim 13, as stated above, Okabe teaches that the electronic component is a flexible printed circuit board (which one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate to be an IC chip). Regarding claim 14, Okabe further teaches in FIG. 3, that the resin substrate 10 is provided in the display region D. Additionally, a thin film transistor layer 30, provided above the substrate, in the abstract it is stated “In a TFT layer: a semiconductor layer, a first interlayer insulation film, a first wiring layer, a second interlayer insulation film, a second wiring layer, a third interlayer insulation film, a third wiring layer, a first flattening film, a fourth wiring layer, and a second flattening film are layered in the stated order.” Above the TFT is a light emitting element layer, which in FIG 3 is shown to have a plurality of light emitting elements 35, disposed at each of the subpixels (also denoted by 35), comprising a sealing film 40. Regarding claim 15, as explained above, Okabe further teaches that the first interlayer organic layered film includes “. . . the second interlayer insulating film 15 . . .” (First Embodiment paragraph 12). Regarding claim 18, Okabe teaches, in paragraph 8 of First Embodiment: “Further, the third wiring layer and the fourth wiring layer are preferably formed of the same material . . . that can be etched with the same etching solution or etching gas.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the plurality of pads out of the same material as the third wiring layer. The examiner notes that while Okabe does not directly teach the formation of the pads out of the same material as the third wiring layer, one having ordinary skill in the art it motivated to do so in order to ensure that the materials can be etched with the same etching solution or etching gas, as stated above, in order to reduce manufacturing steps. Regarding claim 19, as shown above, Okabe teaches the formation of two wiring layers out of the same material so that the same etching means can be used to etch into the material, which will save an etching step. Okabe further teaches in paragraph 30 of First Embodiment: “the first damming wall Wa is formed into the same layer by the lower resin layer 22b formed of the same material as the second flattening film 22a . . .” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Okabe such that the flattening film is formed in the same layer and of the same material as the second flattening film. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to form the flattening film in the same layer as the second flattening film in order to save a deposition step, as taught by Okabe above, and to form the layers of the same material to save an etching step, as also taught by Okabe above. Regarding claim 20, Okabe further teaches, in First Embodiment paragraph 1: “. . . in each of the following embodiments, an organic EL display device provided with an organic EL element layer will be exemplified . . .” 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (WO 2021079412 A1) in view of Jung (JP 2006227616 A) in further view of Chung (US 20140339575) . Regarding claim 8, as explained above, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 6. They do not explicitly teach a particular distance between the pad columns, although one of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that the distance needs to be sufficient to electrically isolate the columns. Chung teaches, in FIG. 2, a distance D1, between two pads (one of which is labeled 154). Paragraph 0045 teaches “the horizontal spacing D1 between two of the pads 150 adjacent to each other may be in a range of about 10 μm to 35 μm.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to create the display device taught by Okabe and Jung such that the pad columns are between 20 and 100 μm apart, as taught by Chung. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the pad columns are electrically isolated from one another. The examiner notes that the pads taught by Okabe receive driving currents from the electronic component, requiring excellent electrical isolation between the columns to prevent faults. Regarding claim 16, as shown above, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 14. In addition, Okabe teaches the creation of wiring layers of the same material (which one of ordinary skill in the art appreciates will save a deposition step). As explained above, Jung teaches two flattening film layers which are formed of the same material at the same time, which allows for the same etching means to be used. They do not teach lead wires in the insulating film. Chung teaches, in FIG. 3 second lead lines 130 (lead wiring lines) interposed in a multilayer film comprising “protective layer” 160 and “insulating layer” 140. Paragraph 0052 teaches “The insulating layer 140 and the protective layer 160 may be a single or multilayer structure and made of dielectric material, such as . . . inorganic dielectric materials.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display device taught by Okabe and Jung such that a plurality of lead wiring lines are interposed in the inorganic layered film, as taught by Chung. Additionally, it would have been obvious to form the lead wiring lines in the same layer as and with the same material of first and/or second wiring layers. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, provide an insulated interconnect to the pads while saving a deposition step (by forming the lead wire at the same time as the first or second wiring line layer) and saving an etching step (by forming the lead wiring layer out of the same material as the first or second wiring line layer, meaning that the same etching means can be used, as taught by Jung). Regarding claim 17, Chung further teaches, in FIG. 3, a “through hole (contact hole) 162 in an inorganic layered film (above the lead wiring lines) which allows for the electrical connection of the pad (unlabeled, the examiner notes that FIG. 3 is a cross-section of the line 3-3 in FIG. 2, which is through one of the pads 150) to the lead wiring lines 130 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (WO 2021079412 A1) in view of Jung (JP 2006227616 A) in further view of Miyamoto (US 20180046012) . Regarding claim 9, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Okabe and Jung do not teach a specific thickness for the flattening film. Miyamoto teaches, in FIG. 3, a passivation film 10 which covers the edge portions of picture signal lines 71. Paragraph 0032 teaches “. . . passivation film 106 is formed as thick as a thickness of 2 to 4 μm.” The examiner note that a passivation film is structurally identical to a flattening film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device taught by Okabe and Jung such that the flattening film is between 1 to 3 μm, as taught by Miyamoto. The examiner notes that if the whole film is of this thickness, then this includes the portion which covers the end portion of the plurality of pads. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the end portions of the pads are electrically isolated from one another. Regarding claim 10, as stated above, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 1 and Miyamoto teaches a flattening film with a thickness of between 2 and 4 μm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Okabe and Jung such that the flattening film has a thickness from 1 to 3 μm as taught by Miyamoto. The examiner notes that if the entire flattening film is of this thickness, as taught by Miyamoto, then the portion above each of the plurality of pads is also in this range. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the end portions of the pads are electrically isolated from one another. Regarding claim 11, as explained above, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 1, and Miyamoto teaches a flattening film with a thickness of between 2 and 4 μm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Okabe and Jung such that the flattening film has a thickness from 1 to 3 μm as taught by Miyamoto. The examiner notes that if the entire flattening film is of this thickness, as taught by Miyamoto, then the portion above the flattening film is also within this range. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, ensure that the pads are electrically isolated from one another . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (WO 2021079412 A1) in view of Jung (JP 2006227616 A) in further view of Roh (KR 20190020781 A) . Regarding claim 12, as explained above, Okabe and Jung teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach that the pads are formed from metal layered TI/AL/Ti. Roh teaches, in paragraph a “wiring pad PAD [that] contains Ti/Al/Ti.” The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate this notation to denote a metal layered film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device taught by Okabe and Jung such that the plurality of pads are formed from metal layered Ti/Al/Ti. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, take advantage of the excellent conductive and mechanical properties of a Ti/Al/Ti pad. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hashimoto (US 20180033993 A1): Electrodes, hole-injection, hole-transport, and electron-transport layers in a light emitting element. Jongwon (US 20160105959 A1): TFTs below subpixels, pad electrodes, insulating layers and a mounted PCB. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET.. 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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. /G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 2 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 3 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 4 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 5 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 6 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 7 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 8 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 9 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 10 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 11 Art Unit: 2897 Application/Control Number: 18/692,942 Page 12 Art Unit: 2897
