DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Mar. 19, 2026 has been entered and made of record. In view of the Applicant’s amendments for claim 1 deleting “a brightness value of the display panel”, Examiner fully acknowledges the priority. In view of Applicant’s amendment for title and abstract, the objections to the specification have been expressly withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s amendment for claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17-18, the claim objections have been expressly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has been amended to further recite “the floating pattern is surrounded by the first and second mesh lines contained in one of the second sensor pattern”, Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 12)
The first auxiliary wire 80A of Ichiki, which allegedly corresponds to the claimed floating pattern appears to be an element that is not surrounded by mesh lines included within one second sensor pattern, but instead appears to be positioned between two spaced-apart sensor pattern. Because mesh lines included in the element 64A of Ichiki appears to be formed in a constant pattern without any breaks, the first auxiliary wire 80A does not appear to be located inside the element 64A. Thus, Ichiki does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Lee and Park to reject claim 1 as presently amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee in view of Park and Ichiki still teaches the amended claim 1. Specifically, Lee teaches a floating pattern (Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”), each including first and second mesh lines (Lee, see FIG. 6); and the floating pattern (Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”) is surrounded the first and second mesh lines contained in one of the second sensor pattern (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”).
Lee does not explicitly teach “wherein the floating pattern is insulated from the second sensing patterns and the second connection pattern”; and “the floating pattern overlaps the first connection pattern and does not overlap the first sensor patterns”.
However, Ichiki teaches the concept that the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 81A is unconnected with and electrically isolated from”; “auxiliary wire 81A” includes “L-shaped pattern”) is insulated from the second sensing patterns (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “the first large lattice 68A”) and the second connection pattern (Ichiki, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0065], “connection 72A”).
At the time of effective filing date, especially considering that both Lee and Park teach the concept of the bridge elements overlapping the mesh lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “TE1 TE3” taught by Lee to comprise “dummy metal (DM)”, which corresponds to the “auxiliary wire 81A” including “L-shaped pattern” taught by Ichiki, near the “second connection part CP2” by configuring some mesh lines to be floating dummy lines (e.g., Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”), as taught by Lee in view of Ichiki, such that the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 81A” includes “L-shaped pattern”) overlaps the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) and does not overlap the first sensing patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE2 TE4”), in order to provide “a conductive sheet and a touch panel, which can have an electrode containing a pattern of less visible, thin, metal wires with a high transparency” (Ichiki, [0010]).
Accordingly, claim 1 is not allowable.
Claims 2-20 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and is not allowable at least for the same reason above.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0348912 A1, IDS) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0032188 A1, IDS) and Ichiki (US 2014/0054070 A1, IDS).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic device (Lee, FIG. 1, [0081], “touch display device 100”), comprising:
a display panel (Lee, FIG. 1, [0137], “display panel 110”) configured to display an image based on input image data (Lee, FIG. 1, [0078], image data inputted via “data lines and gate lines arranged for displaying an image”) provided from a processor (Lee, FIG. 1, [0078], a processor controlling “display driving circuit 120”), and an input sensing layer (Lee, FIG. 1, [0081], “touch screen panel (TSP)”) on the display panel (Lee, see FIG. 1, [0137], “display panel 110”) and detecting external input (Lee, FIG. 1, [0082], “detects a touch sensing signal”); and
the input sensing layer (Lee, FIG. 1, [0081], “touch screen panel (TSP)”) comprising:
a first conductive layer (Lee, FIGS. 10 and 14, [0188], “bridge layer” having “bridge configuration”, e.g., “Type C”) comprising a first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”);
an insulating layer (Lee, FIG. 14, [0204], “insulating layer ILD”) on the display panel (Lee, see FIGS. 14 and 19-20) and covering the first conductive layer (Lee, FIG. 14, [0204], “the bridge layer is separated from a TE layer in which TEs are present, by an insulating layer”); and
a second conductive layer (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE layer” comprising “TE2 TE4” and “TE1 TE3”) including first sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], Examiner interprets “TE2 TE4” as the 1st sensing patterns), second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], Examiner interprets “TE1 TE3” as the 2nd sensing patterns), and a floating pattern (Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”), each including first and second mesh lines (Lee, e.g., see FIGS. 5 and 8, [0133], “Each touch electrode (TE) is an electrode metal (EM) patterned in the form of a mesh having a plurality of open areas (OAs)”), and being on the insulating layer (Lee, see FIG. 14, [0204], on “insulating layer ILD”); and
the floating pattern (Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”) is surrounded the first and second mesh lines contained in one of the second sensor pattern (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”).
Lee does not teach “a second connection pattern”.
However, Park teaches the concept of a second connection pattern (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “second connection part CP2”)”; and
also teaches the concepts of a first conductive layer (Park, FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], the layer comprising “first connection part CP1”) comprising a first connection pattern (Park, FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “first connection part CP1”); and
a second conductive layer (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], the layer comprising “the first and second touch sensing parts SP1 and SP2” and “the second connection part CP2”) including first sensor patterns (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “the first sensing part SP1”), second sensor patterns (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “the second sensing part SP2”), each including first and second mesh lines (Park, see FIGS. 10A-10C).
at the time of effective filing date, especially considering the high similarity in touch conductive layer structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “TE1 TE3” taught by Lee to be connected by the “second connection part CP2”, as taught by Park, in order to provide “reliability of the touch panel used in the flexible display apparatus” (Park, [0005]).
Lee in view of Park does not explicitly teach “wherein the floating pattern is insulated from the second sensing patterns and the second connection pattern”; and “the floating pattern overlaps the first connection pattern and does not overlap the first sensor patterns”.
However, Ichiki teaches the concept that the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 81A is unconnected with and electrically isolated from”; “auxiliary wire 81A” includes “L-shaped pattern”) is insulated from the second sensing patterns (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “the first large lattice 68A”) and the second connection pattern (Ichiki, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0065], “connection 72A”).
At the time of effective filing date, especially considering that both Lee and Park teach the concept of the bridge elements overlapping the mesh lines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “TE1 TE3” taught by Lee to comprise “dummy metal (DM)”, which surrounded by “mesh lines” and corresponds to the “auxiliary wire 81A” including “L-shaped pattern” taught by Ichiki, near the “second connection part CP2” by configuring some mesh lines to be floating dummy lines (e.g., Lee, FIG. 6, [0139], “dummy metal (DM)”), as taught by Lee in view of Ichiki, such that the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 81A” includes “L-shaped pattern”) overlaps the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) and does not overlap the first sensing patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE2 TE4”), in order to provide “a conductive sheet and a touch panel, which can have an electrode containing a pattern of less visible, thin, metal wires with a high transparency” (Ichiki, [0010]).
As to claim 2, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A”) is surrounded by the second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the first and second mesh lines included in the second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”) and the first and second mesh lines included in the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”) are non-overlapping (Lee, see FIGS. 13-14). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 4, Park teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second mesh lines overlapping a boundary between the first sensor patterns (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “the first sensing part SP1”) and the sensor sensing patterns (Park, e.g., FIGS. 10A-10C, [0163], “the second sensing part SP2”) is disconnected (Park, see FIG. 10B, “SSP1_1” and “SSP1_2” are disconnected). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 5, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first and second mesh lines included in the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”) overlapping the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) extend in a direction parallel to the floating pattern (Ichiki, see FIG. 4). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 6, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE2 TE4”) are connected to the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) through contact holes defined in the insulating layer (Lee, see FIG. 14, [0189], “each of the TE2 and TE4 is connected to a corresponding BP through a contact hole of the insulating layer”).
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein ends of the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) overlap with the first sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE2 TE4”) spaced apart from each other with (Lee, e.g., FIG. 14, by “ILD”) the second connection pattern (Ichiki, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0065], “connection 72A”) therebetween, and
a remaining portion of the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) overlaps (Lee, see FIGS. 10-14) the second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”) connected to the second connection pattern (Ichiki, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0065], “connection 72A”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the first sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE2 TE4”) spaced apart with the second connection pattern (Ichiki, FIGS. 2 and 4, [0065], “connection 72A”) interposed therebetween are connected by two first connection patterns (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”), and
one of the first connection pattern has a '<' shape, and the other of the first connection pattern has a '>' shape (Lee, see FIG. 10, “Type C”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 9, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein an overlapping area between the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”) and the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”) is about 10% or more and 90% or less of an area of (Ichiki, [0086], “The line width of each of the first auxiliary patterns 66A (the first auxiliary wires 80A), the second auxiliary patterns 66B (the second auxiliary wires 80B), and the third auxiliary patterns 66C (the third auxiliary wires 80C) is 30 µm or less, and may be equal to or different from those of the first conductive patterns 64A and the second conductive patterns 64B. It is preferred that the first conductive patterns 64A, the second conductive patterns 64B, the first auxiliary patterns 66A, the second auxiliary patterns 66B, and the third auxiliary patterns 66C have the same line width”) the first connection pattern (Lee, FIG. 10, [0181], e.g., “bridge pattern BP1 and BP2”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”) comprises a same material (Lee, FIGS. 13-14, same material in a sense that some of the “mesh lines” and disconnected to form the “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern” taught by Ichiki) as the second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 11, Lee in view of Ichiki teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a line width of the first and second mesh lines included in the second sensor patterns (Lee, e.g., FIGS. 13-14, [0189], “TE1 TE3”) are the same as a line width of the first and second mesh lines (Ichiki, [0086], “The line width of each of the first auxiliary patterns 66A (the first auxiliary wires 80A), the second auxiliary patterns 66B (the second auxiliary wires 80B), and the third auxiliary patterns 66C (the third auxiliary wires 80C) is 30 .mu.m or less, and may be equal to or different from those of the first conductive patterns 64A and the second conductive patterns 64B. It is preferred that the first conductive patterns 64A, the second conductive patterns 64B, the first auxiliary patterns 66A, the second auxiliary patterns 66B, and the third auxiliary patterns 66C have the same line width”) included in the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 1.
As to claim 12, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the input sensing layer (Lee, FIG. 1, [0081], “touch screen panel (TSP)”) detects the external input in a capacitive manner (Lee, FIG. 1, [0087], “capacitance-based touch sensing method”).
As to claim 17, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display panel (Lee, see FIG. 1, [0137], “display panel 110”) comprises:
a base layer (Lee, FIG. 17, [0259], a base layer comprising the circuit);
a light-emitting element (Lee, FIG. 17, [0259], “OLED”) including a first electrode (Lee, FIG. 17, [0260], “anode electrode”), a second electrode (Lee, FIG. 17, [0260], “cathode electrode”), and a light-emitting layer (Lee, FIG. 17, [0260], “organic layer”) disposed between the first electrode (Lee, FIG. 17, [0260], “anode electrode”) and the second electrode (Lee, FIG. 17, [0260], “cathode electrode”; FIG. 19, “cathode”), which are on the base layer (Lee, FIG. 17, [0259], the base layer comprising the circuit);
a pixel-definition layer (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0287], “black matrix (BM)”) having an opening defined therein that exposes at least a portion of the first electrode (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0285], “In the plurality of open areas OAs, one or more subpixels or a light emitting portion thereof may be present when viewed in the vertical direction”); and
an encapsulation layer covering the light-emitting element (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0282], “a cathode of the OLED may be present under the encapsulation layer ENCAP”).
Lee in view of Park does not teach an encapsulation layer “on the pixel-definition layer”.
However, Lee teaches the concept of an encapsulation layer (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0282], “encapsulation layer ENCAP”) under the pixel-definition layer (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0287], “black matrix (BM)”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “ENCAP” to be on the “BM”, or add another encapsulation layer on the “BM” as a matter of engineering choice.
As to claim 18, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 17, wherein the first and second mesh lines overlap with the pixel-definition layer and do not overlap with the opening (Lee, see FIGS. 19-20, [0287], “the position of a black matrix (BM) corresponds to the position of the EM of the TEs”).
As to claim 19, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein the input sensing layer (Lee, FIGS. 1 and 19-20, [0081], “touch screen panel (TSP)” comprising “TE(EM)”) is directly on the encapsulation layer (Lee, FIGS. 19-20, [0280], “by forming the TEs on the encapsulation layer ENCAP, the TE may be formed without greatly affecting display performance and formation of a layer for display”).
As to claim 20, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a window panel (Lee, see FIGS. 19-20, [0292], “an overcoat layer OC above the plurality of TEs”) on the input sensing layer (Lee, FIGS. 1 and 19-20, [0081], “touch screen panel (TSP)” comprising “TE(EM)”).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0348912 A1, IDS, hereinafter Lee) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0032188 A1, IDS), Ichiki (US 2014/0054070 A1, IDS) and Kim et al. (US 2019/0079633 A1).
As to claim 13, Lee in view of Park and Ichiki does not teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein each of the second sensor patterns has an opening defined therein, and the input sensing layer further comprises third sensor patterns in the openings and third connection patterns connecting the third sensing patterns.
However, Kim teaches the concept that each of the second sensor patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0098], “second sensor patterns SP2”) has an opening defined therein (Kim, FIG. 3, [0098], opening defining “third sensor patterns NP”), and the input sensing layer (Kim, FIG. 3, [0095], “input sensing unit”) further comprises third sensor patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0098], “third sensor patterns NP”) in the openings (Kim, see FIG. 3) and third connection patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0096], “third sensing electrode NB”) connecting the third sensing patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0098], “third sensor patterns NP”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layer comprising the “TE1 TE3” taught by Lee to further comprise the “third sensor patterns NP” and “third sensing electrode NB”, as taught by Kim, in order to obviate the problem that “the complexity of electronic display devices including touch panel, which includes multiple layers of overlapping electrode patterns, can result in undesirable noise that can affect the accuracy of the touch sensing unit in the touch pane” (Kim, [0004]).
As to claim 14, Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the third connection patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0096], “third sensing electrode NB”) are included in the first conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 4A, [0072], “the first conductive layer A1 may include a first connecting pattern BP1 and a third connecting pattern NB”), and the third sensor patterns (Kim, FIG. 3, [0098], “third sensor patterns NP”) are included in the second conductive layer (Kim, see FIG. 4B, in “second conductive layer A2”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 13.
As to claim 15, Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the third sensor patterns are connected to the third connection patterns through contact holes defined in the insulating layer (Kim, FIG. 2B, [0072], “a portion of the first conductive layer A1 may be connected to a portion of the second conductive layer A2 through a contact hole CH”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 13.
As to claim 16, Ichiki in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the first connection pattern (Kim, FIG. 3, [0082], “second connecting patterns BP2”) and the floating pattern (Ichiki, FIG. 4, [0093], “auxiliary wire 80A” including “L-shaped pattern”) are spaced apart from the third connection patterns (Kim, see FIG. 3, [0096], “third sensing electrode NB”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Jeong et al. (US 2018/0308903 A1) teaches the concept of “first connection parts CP1-1 and CP1-2” (FIG. 18, [0337]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
May 8, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights