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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-9, & 12-23 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues the Kim does not explicitly teach three or more crack detection wiring lines. Examiner agrees that three or more crack detection wiring lines is not explicitly taught by Kim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 103.
The amended claim language is a number adjustment of only one crack detection wiring line over the previous reference. Examiner notes that the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See MPEP Section 2144.04 VI B.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-13, & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0212356).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Kim teaches:
A display device comprising:
a display region (Fig. 1 Element DA.);
a frame region around a periphery of the display region (Fig. 1 Elements on perimeter of DA.);
a terminal portion including (Fig. 1 Element PAD.)
a first terminal (Fig. 1 Element CDPa.) and a second terminal (Fig1. Element CDPb.) forming a pair of inspection terminals (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa & CDPb. See paragraph 0043.), and
a plurality of input terminals provided between the first terminal and the second terminal and connected, respectively, to a three or more first signal lines extending from the display region and in a signal line formation region of the frame region (Fig. 1 Elements VSSPa, VDDPa, GPa etc. See paragraph 0043.); and
three or more crack detection wiring lines provided in the frame region (Fig. 1 Elements CD1& CD2. See paragraph 0044.), the three or more crack detection wiring lines each including a first end and a second end disposed, respectively, on either side of the signal line formation region (Fig. 1 Elements CD1& CD2. See paragraph 0044.),
wherein each first end of the three or more crack detection wiring lines is electrically connected to the first terminal, the first terminal being closer to the first end than the second terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0040-0046.), and
each second end of the three or more crack detection wiring lines is electrically connected to the second terminal, the second terminal being closer to the second end than the first terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0040-0046.).
Kim teaches:
two crack detection wiring lines
Kim does not explicitly teach:
three or more crack detection wiring lines
PNG
media_image1.png
660
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have three or more crack detection wiring lines because as is shown, Kim already has two detection wires and the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Having three or more wires would not produce any new or unexpected result. It would provide an expected higher level of sensitivity and reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Cancelled.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches all two adjacent crack detection wiring lines of the three or more crack detection wiring lines are formed of an inner crack detection wiring line closer to the display region and an outer crack detection wiring line farther from the display region (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0040-0046.), and the outer crack detection wiring line is provided surrounding a periphery of the inner crack detection wiring line (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0040-0046.).
Kim does not explicitly teach three or more crack detection wiring lines.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have three or more crack detection wiring lines because as is shown, Kim already has two detection wires and the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Having three or more wires would not produce any new or unexpected result. It would provide an expected higher level of sensitivity and reliability. This statement applies to all subsequent dependent claims that address three or more crack detection wiring lines.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches the first end of one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines extends to the first terminal and is connected to the first terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.), the first end of another one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, other than the first end of the one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines connected to the first terminal, are electrically connected to the first terminal via the one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines connected to the first terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.), the second end of the one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines extends to the second terminal and is connected to the second terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.), and the second end of the other end of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, other than the second end of the one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines connected to the second terminal, are electrically connected to the second terminal via the one of the three or more crack detection wiring lines connected to the second terminal (Fig. 1 Elements CDPb, CD1, & CD2. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches a resistance value measured via the first terminal and the second terminal is different depending on a number of disconnections of the three or more crack detection wiring lines in a portion provided around the periphery of the display region (Paragraphs 0018, 0061, & 0148-0150.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches each resistance value of each crack detection wiring line forming the three or more crack detection wiring lines is different (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD2 determines the resistance which would easily be higher because the wire is thinner. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches each resistance value of each crack detection wiring line forming the three or more crack detection wiring lines is identical (Fig. 1 Elements CDPa, CDPb, CD1, & CD2 wherein the wire are depicted as identical. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have each resistance value of each crack detection wiring line forming the three or more crack detection wiring lines be identical because this allows for a simpler construction and uniformity in the system versus the different thicknesses depicted in another embodiment.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches a resistance value for a crack detection wiring line, among the three or more crack detection wiring lines, that is disposed closer to the display region is higher (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD2 determines the resistance which would easily be higher because the wire is thinner. See paragraphs 0142-0145. The resistance would be determined by a factor of R = ρ(l/A) where R is resistance, ρ is resistivity, l is length, and A is the cross-sectional area.).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches wherein resistance values of any two adjacent crack detection wiring lines selected from the three or more crack detection wiring lines are set in a manner that the resistance value of the crack detection wiring line disposed closer to the display region is equal to, or greater than, two-times the resistance value of the crack detection wiring line disposed farther from the display region (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire determines the resistance. See paragraphs 0142-0145. The resistance would be determined by a factor of R = ρ(l/A) where R is resistance, ρ is resistivity, l is length, and A is the cross-sectional area.).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches among two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, a line width of one of the two crack detection wiring lines is different from a line width of the other of the two crack detection wiring lines by two-times or greater (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 are depicted as having different widths of a factor of two or more. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches the one of the two crack detection wiring lines is disposed closer to the display region than the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 1 Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein CD2 is closer to the display. See paragraphs 0043, & 0058-0061.), and the line width of the other of the two crack detection wiring lines is equal to, or greater than, two-times the line width of the one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD1 is depicted as having a width twice as much as CD2. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches among two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, a specific resistance value of one of the two crack detection wiring lines is different from a specific resistance value of the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines by two-times or greater (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD1 determines the resistance and its double thickness will have much less resistance than the thin wire CD2 by a factor of R = ρ(l/A) where R is resistance, ρ is resistivity, l is length, and A is the cross-sectional area. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches the one of the two crack detection wiring lines is disposed closer to the display region than the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 1 & 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein CD2 is closer than CD1. See paragraphs 0142-0145.), and the specific resistance value of the one of the two crack detection wiring lines is equal to, or greater than, two-times the specific resistance value of the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD2 determines the resistance which would be higher by a factor of R = ρ(l/A) where R is resistance, ρ is resistivity, l is length, and A is the cross-sectional area. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0212356) in view of Anno et al (U.S. PGPub # 2016/0139711).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches or makes obvious or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim does not explicitly teach at least two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines are formed of different materials.
Anno teaches at least two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines are formed of different materials (See paragraphs 0070-0073.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Anno to the teachings of Kim such that at least two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines are formed of different materials because this allows for easier inspection of possible cracks. See paragraph 0070 of Annon.
Regarding claim 19, Kim & Anno teach or makes obvious all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches at least two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines include a first crack detection wiring line and a second crack detection wiring line (Fig. 1 & 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein CD2 is closer than CD1. See paragraphs 0142-0145.), the first crack detection wiring line is provided closer to the display region than the second crack detection wiring line (Fig. 1 & 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein CD2 is closer than CD1. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
Kim & Anno do not explicitly teach the first crack detection wiring line is formed of one or more selected from molybdenum and tungsten, and the second crack detection wiring line is formed of one or more selected from aluminum, silver, and copper.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the first crack detection wiring line is formed of one or more selected from molybdenum and tungsten, and the second crack detection wiring line is formed of one or more selected from aluminum, silver, and copper because this allows one to control the resistance of the wires in a manner other than varying the thickness of the wires. See MPEP Section 2144.02 & 2144.03 wherein it is scientific knowledge that different metals have different conductivities and resistances and because the knowledge of metal resistances is well-known.
Claims 14-15 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0212356) in view of Zhou et al (U.S. PGPub # 2021/0175463).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim does not explicitly teach among two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, a film thickness of one of the two crack detection wiring lines is different from a film thickness of the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines by two-times or greater.
Zhou teaches among two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, a film thickness of one of the two crack detection wiring lines is different from a film thickness of the other of the two crack detection wiring lines by two-times or greater (Fig. 1 & 2 Elements 3, 4, & 5 wherein one wire has the seal and the other does not. See paragraphs 0037-0044.).
PNG
media_image3.png
718
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
362
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kim such that of two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, a film thickness of one of the two crack detection wiring lines is different from a film thickness of the other of the two crack detection wiring lines by two-times or greater because “a sealant layer seals an array substrate and a counter substrate together to form a cell” and because the seal can isolate certain elements of the system. See paragraph 0032 of Zhou.
Regarding claim 15, Kim & Zhou teach or makes obvious all elements of claim 14, upon which this claim depends.
Kim teaches the one of the two crack detection wiring lines is disposed closer to the display region than the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 1 & 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein CD2 is closer than CD1. See paragraphs 0142-0145.), and the film thickness of the other one of the two crack detection wiring lines is equal to, or greater than, two-times the film thickness of the one of the two crack detection wiring lines (Fig. 5A Elements CD1 & CD2 wherein the thickness of the wire CD1 is shown as being greater than the wire CD2. See paragraphs 0142-0145.).
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim does not explicitly teach a sealing layer covering the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region, wherein at least a portion of the three or more crack detection wiring lines, that surrounds the display region and includes a crack detection wiring line disposed farthest from the display region, is provided on an outer side of an end portion of the sealing layer.
Zhou teaches a sealing layer covering the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region (Fig. 1 & 2 Elements 3, 10, 11, & 13 wherein the seal 3 covers part of substrate 10, insulating layer 11, & dielectric layer 13. See paragraphs 0037 & 0047-0048.), wherein at least a portion of a portion surrounding the display region of some crack detection wiring lines including a crack detection wiring line disposed farthest from the display region from among the three or more crack detection wiring lines is provided on an outer side of an end portion of the sealing layer (Fig. 1 & 2 Elements 5 & 3 wherein 5 is on an outer side of seal 3. See paragraphs 0037 & 0041-0045.).
PNG
media_image3.png
718
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
362
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kim such that a sealing layer would cover the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region, wherein at least a portion of a portion surrounding the display region of some crack detection wiring lines including a crack detection wiring line disposed farthest from the display region from among the three or more crack detection wiring lines is provided on an outer side of an end portion of the sealing layer because “a sealant layer seals an array substrate and a counter substrate together to form a cell.” See paragraph 0032 of Zhou.
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim does not explicitly teach a sealing layer covering the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region, wherein a portion of the three or more crack detection wiring lines surrounding the display region is covered by the sealing layer.
Zhou teaches a sealing layer covering the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region (Fig. 1 & 2 Elements 3, 10, 11, & 13 wherein the seal 3 covers part of substrate 10, insulating layer 11, & dielectric layer 13. See paragraphs 0037 & 0047-0048.), wherein a portion of the three or more crack detection wiring lines surrounding the display region is covered by the sealing layer (Fig. 1 Elements 3 & 4 wherein the wire 4 is surrounded by the seal 3. See paragraph 0037.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhou to the teachings of Kim such that a sealing layer covering the display region and a portion of the frame region continuing on from the display region, wherein a portion of the three or more crack detection wiring lines surrounding the display region is covered by the sealing layer because “a sealant layer seals an array substrate and a counter substrate together to form a cell.” See paragraph 0032 of Zhou.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. The specific requirement of the necessary resistance is not an obvious variation of the cited references that could be made obvious without impermissible hindsight.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kim does not explicitly teach resistance values of two of the three or more crack detection wiring lines are set in a manner that a resistance value of a crack detection wiring line, among the two crack detection wiring lines, disposed closer to the display region is 1.68 times greater than the resistance value of the crack detection wiring line, among the two crack detection wiring lines, disposed farther from the display region.
Regarding claim 21,
Kim does not explicitly teach a length of the crack detection wiring line disposed closer to the display region is 1.68 times greater than a length of the crack detection wiring line disposed farther from the display region.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858