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 claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 8/11/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hou et al. US 2024/0188221.
Re claim 1, Hou teaches a display panel (fig1), comprising:
a base substrate (100, fig1D, [24]) comprising a first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]) and a second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]), wherein a degree of inclination of the first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]) relative to a plane in which the display panel (100b, fig1D, [25]) is located is greater than a degree of inclination of the second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located; and
a first signal line (310”, fig1D, [30]), wherein at least part of the first signal line (310”, fig1D, [30]) is in contact with the first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]), and at least part of the first signal line (310”, fig1D, [30]) is in contact and connected with the second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]);
wherein equivalent roughness of the second surface is less than equivalent roughness of the first surface (roughness of 100c greater than roughness of 100a, fig1D, [29]).
Re claim 2, Hou teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]) is parallel to a thickness direction of the base substrate (thickness direction of 100, fig1D), and the second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]) is perpendicular to the thickness direction of the base substrate (thickness direction of 100, fig1D).
Re claim 7, Hou teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein a plurality of second surfaces (100a/b, fig1D, [29]) are provided, at least two second surfaces of the plurality of second surfaces are separately located on two sides of a first reference surface (surface between 100a and 100b, fig1D), and the first reference surface is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the base substrate (100, fig1D).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. US 2024/0188221 and Yu et al. US 2022/0377161.
Re claim 3, Hou teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the base substrate further comprises a third surface (100c1, fig1D, [29]) , wherein third surface (100c1, fig1D, [29]) is connected between the first surface (100c, fig1D, [29]) and the second surface (100a, fig1D, [29]), and the first surface (100c, fig1D, [29]) is parallel to a thickness direction of the base substrate (thickness direction of 100, fig1D); the degree of inclination of the first surface (100c, fig1D, [29]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located, a degree of inclination of the third surface (100c1, fig1D, [29]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located, and the degree of inclination of the second surface (100a, fig1D, [29]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located decrease in sequence (fig1D); and the equivalent roughness of the third surface (100c1 0.1-0.5µm, fig1D, [29]) is less than the equivalent roughness of the first surface (100c 0.5-2µm, fig1D, [25]).
Hou does not explicitly show the equivalent roughness of the second surface is less than equivalent roughness of the third surface.
Yu teaches roughness of the second surface (106ts, fig1B, [30]) is less than equivalent roughness of the third surface (106tr, fig1B, [30]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou and Yu to form 100a/b with less roughness as 100c1/c2. The motivation to do so is to improve signal transmission in the bended region (Yu, [47]).
Re claim 4, Hou modified above teaches the display panel of claim 3, wherein the first surface (100c, fig1D, [29]) is parallel to the thickness direction of the base substrate (100, fig1D), the second surface (100a, fig1D, [29]) is perpendicular to the thickness direction of the base substrate (100, fig1D), and both the first surface and the second surface intersect the third surface (100c1, fig1D, [29]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. US 2024/0188221, Yu et al. US 2022/0377161 and Cheng et al. US 2022/0053646.
Re claim 5, Hou does not explicitly show the display panel of claim 3, wherein the third surface comprises a first sub- surface and a second sub-surface; wherein the second surface, the second sub-surface, the first sub-surface, and the first surface are connected in sequence, and a degree of inclination of the first sub-surface relative to the plane in which the display panel is located is greater than a degree of inclination of the second sub-surface relative to the plane in which the display panel is located; and the equivalent roughness of the second surface is less than equivalent roughness of the second sub-surface, and equivalent roughness of the first sub-surface is less than the equivalent roughness of the first surface.
Cheng teaches wherein the third surface (116A, fig6, [53]) comprises a first sub- surface (116A2, fig6, [53]) and a second sub-surface (116A1, fig6, [53]); wherein the second surface (112A, fig6, [53]), the second sub-surface (116A1, fig6, [53]), the first sub-surface (116A2, fig6, [53]), and the first surface (114, fig6, [53]) are connected in sequence, and a degree of inclination of the first sub-surface (116A2, fig6, [53]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located is greater than a degree of inclination of the second sub-surface (116A1, fig6, [53]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located (fig6);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou, Yu and Cheng to replace 100c1/c2 with 116A1/2 and 116B1/2. The motivation to do so is to achieve better continuity of the signal line (Cheng, [55]).
Hou modified above teaches and the equivalent roughness of the second surface (Hou, 100a, fig1D, [29]) is less than equivalent roughness of the second sub-surface (Hou, 100c1 replaced by Cheng 116A1/2 with roughness of 116A1 greater than region 100a as in Yu, fig1D, [29]), and equivalent roughness of the first sub-surface (Hou, 100c1 replaced by Cheng 116A1/2 with roughness of 116A2 less than region 100c as in Yu, fig1D, [29]) is less than the equivalent roughness of the first surface (Cheng, 100c, fig1D, [29]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. US 2024/0188221 and Kimura et al. US 2019/0051593.
Re claim 6, Hou teaches the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first signal line (310’, fig3) comprises a first signal line segment (part of 310’ over 100c, fig3D) and a second signal line segment (part of 310’ over 100a, fig3D); wherein the first signal line segment and the second signal line segment are electrically connected to each other (fig 3D), the first signal line segment (part of 310’ over 100c, fig3D) is in contact and connected with the first surface (100c, fig3D), and the second signal line segment (part of 310’ over 100a, fig3D) is in contact and connected with the second surface (100a, fig3D).
Hou does not explicitly show in a first direction, a width of the first signal line segment is greater than or equal to a width of the second signal line segment, the first direction is parallel to the first surface, and the first direction is parallel to the second surface.
Kimura teaches in a first direction (X, fig3), a width of the first signal line segment (W2, fig3, [42]) is greater than or equal to a width of the second signal line segment (W5, fig3, [42]), the first direction (X, fig3) is parallel to the first surface (surface with region AR1, fig3), and the first direction (X, fig3) is parallel to the second surface (surface with region CL1, fig3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou and Kimura to form narrow signal line in region of 100a and wide signal line in region 100c the first direction perpendicular to I-I’ going from left to right in fig3A-3C parallel to both surface 100a and 100c. The motivation to do so is to prevent misconnection between wirings (Kimura, [4,52]).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. US 2024/0188221 and Chen US 2021/0175156.
Re claim 8, Hou does not explicitly show the display panel of claim 1, wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of micro-structure parts, and a micro-structure part of the plurality of micro-structure parts comprises a first recess part and/or a first protrusion part.
Chen teaches the first surface (2013, fig1 and 2, [26]) comprises a plurality of micro-structure parts (203, fig2 and 4, [32]), and a micro-structure part of the plurality of micro-structure parts comprises a first recess part (bottom surface of 203 located under bottom surface of 201 in contact with 204 with top surface of 204 recessed to hold lower part of 203, fig4) and/or a first protrusion part (203 on top surface of region 2013 through signal line 201, fig2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou and Chen to form 203 on top surface of 100c of Hou with bottom surface of 203 located below bottom surface of 201 . The motivation to do so is to reduce stress on the signal line and improve signal transmission in the bended region (Chen, [32]).
Re claim 9, Hou modified above teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein the plurality of micro-structure parts are evenly distributed on the first surface (Chen, fig2 and 4).
Re claim 10, Hou modified above teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein in a plane in which the first surface is located (Hou, 100c, fig1D, [29]), an orthographic projection of the first recess part is a combination of one or more of a circle, an ellipse, and a polygon (Chen, fig3 and 4).
Re claim 12, Hou modified above teaches the display panel of claim 8, wherein in a plane in which the first surface is located, an orthographic projection of the first protrusion part is a combination of one or more of a circle, an ellipse, and a polygon (Chen, fig3 and 4).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. US 2024/0188221 and IM et al. US 2022/0093036.
Re claim 19, Hou teaches a display device, comprising display panels (fig1), each of the display panels comprises:
a base substrate (100, fig1D, [24]) comprising a first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]) and a second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]), wherein a degree of inclination of the first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]) relative to a plane in which the display panel is located (100b, fig1D, [25]) is greater than a degree of inclination of the second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]) relative to the plane in which the display panel is located; and
a first signal line (310”, fig1D, [30]), wherein at least part of the first signal line is in contact with the first surface (100c, fig1D, [25]), and at least part of the first signal line (310”, fig1D, [30]) is in contact and connected with the second surface (100a, fig1D, [25]);
wherein equivalent roughness of the second surface is less than equivalent roughness of the first surface (roughness of 100a less than roughness of 100c, fig1D, [29]);
Hou does not explicitly show wherein the display panels are disposed in parallel, and first surfaces of two adjacent display panels are in contact with each other.
IM teaches the display panels (101, 102, fig1, [59]) are disposed in parallel, and first surfaces of two adjacent display panels are in contact with each other (side surface of 101 and 102 are in contact, fig1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hou and IM to form display panel as IM fig1. The motivation to do so is to minimize non-display area and manufacturing cost (IM, [4]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 13-18 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.
Specifically, the limitations are material to the inventive concept of the application in hand to improve the firmness of the connection between the first signal line and the substrate and prolongs the service life of the display panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, EST.
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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
