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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 09/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/04/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Optical Panel Having Peripheral-to-Central Metal Wiring for Transparent Electrode Connection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kabe et al. (US-20220252951-A1 – hereinafter Kabe).
Regarding claim 1, Kabe teaches an optical panel (Fig.11 1; ¶0015), comprising:
a first substrate (Fig.11 SUB1 and 11; ¶0029), comprising:
a first carrier (SUB1) having an active area (Fig.12 AA; ¶0094) and a peripheral area (Fig.12 the area around AA) located on at least one side of the active area (AA);
a first metal wire pattern (Fig.12 F1; ¶0092) located on the first carrier (SUB1) and extending from the peripheral area (the area around AA) to a central portion (this is implied because F1 must power Fig.11 T1 and CE; ¶0029 which are located in the center of AA) of the active area (AA);
a first insulating layer (Fig.11 11; ¶0030) located on the first carrier (SUB1) and the first metal wire pattern (F1) and having a first through hole (Fig.13 through holes are implied because they are requires for F1 to power T1 and CE through 11) overlapping the central portion (middle of AA) of the active area (AA), wherein a portion of the first metal wire pattern (F1) is located below the first through hole (implied in 11); and
a first transparent electrode (T1) located on the first insulating layer (11) and overlapping the active area (AA) entirely, wherein the first transparent electrode (T1) is electrically connected to the first metal wire pattern (F1); and
a second substrate (Fig.11 SUB2 and 21; ¶0087), comprising:
a second carrier (SUB2); and
a second transparent electrode (Fig.11 T2; ¶0066) located between the second carrier (SUB2) and the first carrier (SUB1) and overlapping the first transparent electrode (T1); and
a display medium layer (Fig.11 EL; ¶0039) located between the first transparent electrode (T1) and the second transparent electrode (T2).
Regarding claim 8, Kabe teaches the optical panel according to claim 1, wherein the first insulating layer (11) further comprises a second through hole (11 is implied to have a plurality of through holes so F1 can power each instance of T1) overlapping the edge portion (Fig.12 edge region of AA) of the active area (AA), and another portion of the first metal wire pattern (F1) is located below the second through hole (implied in 11).
Regarding claim 9, Kabe teaches the optical panel according to claim 1, wherein the first metal wire pattern (F1) comprises a wire part (Fig.12 a wire part is implied within 11 to couple F1 to T1 through the required through holes) and a bonding part (Fig.12 portion of F1 outside of AA) electrically connected to the wire part (implied in 11), the wire part (implied in 11) extends from the peripheral area (outside of AA) to the central portion (middle of AA) of the active area (AA), and the bonding part (Portion of F1 outside of AA) overlaps the peripheral area (outside of AA).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe in view of Chen et al. (US-20250085601-A1 – hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 2, Kabe teaches the optical panel according to claim 1.
Kabe does not teach wherein the first substrate further comprises a metal mesh located on the first insulating layer and contacting the first metal wire pattern through the first through hole, wherein the first transparent electrode covers the metal mesh.
Chen teaches a metal mesh (Fig.4 241; ¶0077 of Chen) that can be integrated with the device taught by Kabe (Fig.11-13 of Kabe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the metal mesh of Chen (241 of Chen) with the transparent electrodes of Kabe (T1 of Kabe) to arrive at the claimed invention. A practitioner of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing the time it takes to switch the display medium layer between transparent and non-transparent states.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kabe in view of Chen from claim 2 teaches the optical panel according to claim 2, further comprising:
a transmissive display panel (Fig.13 PNL; ¶0091 of Kabe) overlapping the first substrate (SUB1 of Kabe), the second substrate (SUB2 of Kabe), and the display medium layer (EL of Kabe), wherein the transmissive display panel (PNL of Kabe) comprises a transmissive area (Fig.12 DA; ¶0093 of Kabe) and a non-transmissive area (Fig.12 SE2; ¶0093 of Kabe), and the first metal wire pattern (F1) and the metal mesh (241 of Chen) overlap the non-transmissive area (SE2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe in view of Chen, and further in view of Yaniv et al. (US-20120147448-A1 – hereinafter Yaniv).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kabe in view of Chen from claim 2 teaches the optical panel according to claim 2, wherein the active area (AA) comprises an edge portion (portion of AA closest to the edge), a transition portion (portion of AA between the edge portion and central portion), and the central portion (middle of AA) from outside to inside.
The combination does not teach wherein a density of the metal mesh on the edge portion and the central portion is less than a density of the metal mesh on the transition portion.
Yaniv teaches adjusting the density of a metal mesh for optimizing desired transparency and resistivity of an optical film (¶0079 of Yaniv).
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the density of the metal mesh to be a result effective variable affecting desired transparency and resistivity of an electrochromic optical film. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the density of the metal mesh within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe in view of Chen, and further in view of Seo et al. (US-20150077361-A1 – hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kabe in view of Chen from claim 2 teaches the optical panel according to claim 2.
The combination does not teach wherein the metal mesh comprises:
an outer frame part located on the edge portion and is an outermost portion of the metal mesh;
a first conductive part connected to the outer frame part and spanning the edge portion, the transition portion, and the central portion; and
a plurality of first branch parts interlaced with the first conductive part, wherein the first conductive part passes through the first branch parts.
Seo teaches a metal mesh (Fig.5 12; ¶0071 of Seo) with an outer frame part (Fig.5 the portion of 12 located in A2 of Seo), a first conductive part (Fig.5 the horizontal portions of 12 located in A1 of Seo) which is connected to the outer frame part (portion of 12 located in A2 of Seo) and spanning the whole mesh (12 of Seo), and a plurality of branch parts (Fig.5 the vertical portions of 12 located in A1 of Seo) which are interlaced with the horizontal portions (the horizontal portions of 12 located in A1 of Seo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the metal mesh design of Seo (12 of Seo) for the incorporated metal mesh of Chen (241 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. This difference is obvious because it is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kabe in view of Chen, and further in view of Seo from claim 5 teaches the optical panel according to claim 5, wherein the first insulating layer (11) further comprises a second through hole (11 of Kabe is implied to have a plurality of through holes so F1 can power each instance of T1) overlapping the edge portion (Fig.12 edge region of AA of Kabe) of the active area (AA), and another portion of the first metal wire pattern (F1) is located below the second through hole (11 of Kabe is implied to have a plurality of through holes so F1 can power each instance of T1).
The combination does not teach wherein a resistance on a dummy boundary line from the first metal wire pattern through the first through hole to the first conductive part is equal to a resistance on the dummy boundary line from the first metal wire pattern through the second through hole and the outer frame part to the first conductive part, the first branch parts have a highest distribution density in an area close to the dummy boundary line.
The recited “resistance of the first metal wire pattern” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is the first metal wire pattern, which Kabe clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. see also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). It is in this regard that the claim is considered met.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kabe in view of Chen from claim 2 teaches the optical panel according to claim 2.
The combination does not teach wherein the metal mesh comprises a plurality of openings of different sizes.
Seo teaches a metal mesh (Fig.5 12; ¶0071 of Seo) which figure 5 of Seo depicts with different sized openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the metal mesh design of Seo (12 of Seo) for the incorporated metal mesh of Chen (241 of Chen) to arrive at the claimed invention. This difference is obvious because it is a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20250126684-A1 and US-20220342268-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights