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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 7-10 in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 11-13, and 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) ss being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2025/0081728). (see Fig. 14 (using P in place of d) below for portions in comparison to Fig. 5 of this application)
PNG
media_image1.png
640
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a display panel (Fig. 1, (110) and touch sensor [0100] comprising: an insulating layer (Fig. 14, (INS2)) [0221] including a first portion having a thickness dl (Fig. 14, (P1)), a second portion having a thickness d2 (Fig. 14, (P2), and a third portion positioned between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 14, (P3), and having a thickness d3, wherein 0 <dl - d3 < d3 - d2 is established (Fig. 14 (0<(P1-P3)<(P3-P2)); and a first wiring line (Fig. 14, (GE2) positioned over the insulating layer (INS2), and overlapping the first portion in a plan view (GE2 overlaps first portion P1 in plan view).
As to claim 2, further, Kim discloses in Fig. 14, the third portion (P3) is adjacent to the first portion (P1) and the second portion (P2).
As to claim 3, further, Kim discloses the insulating layer (INS2) further includes a fourth portion (Fig. 14, (P4)) positioned opposite the second portion ((Fig. 14, (P2) , with respect to the first portion (Fig. 14, (P1), and having a thickness d4 (see P4) thickness], and includes a fifth portion (Fig. 14, (P5) positioned between the first portion (Fig. 14, (P1) and the fourth portion (Fig. 14, (P4), and having a thickness d5 (see P5 thickness), and 0<dl - d5 < d5 - d4 is established (Fig. 14, (0<(P1-P5)<(P5-P4)).
As to claim 4, further, Kim discloses Fig. 14, P2 = P4 and P3 = P5 are established.
As to claim 5, further, Kim discloses W2 >2xWi is established, where Wi denotes a width of the first portion Fig. 14, (P1), and where W2 denotes a distance from a boundary between the second portion and the third portion (boundary between P2 and P3) to a boundary between the fourth portion and the fifth portion (boundary between P4 and P5)) in the plan view. (The width of first portion P1 multiplied times 2, is smaller than the distance from the boundary between second portion P2 and third portion P3 and boundary between fourth portion P4 and fifth portion P5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2025/0081728) in view of Shiina (US 2026/0072315).
As to claim 7, further, Kim, does not specifically discloses a middle layer being that is insulating and that is formed over the first wiring line; and a second wiring line having a mesh shape and connected to the first wiring line via a contact hole formed in the middle layer.
Analogous prior art Shiina discloses a middle layer (Fig. 7, (BR) being that is insulating and that is formed over the first wiring line (Fig. 7, (ML2(L)); and a second wiring line (CE1(Rx) having a mesh shape and connected to the first wiring line (ML2(L) via a contact hole (CH3) formed in the middle layer (BR)[0072]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the second wiring line connected to a first wiring line through a contact hole since by using contact holes, manufacturers can route wiring through insulating layers without adding extra metal layers, reducing process complexity.
As to claim 8, further, Kim discloses an overcoat layer (Fig. 14, (INS1) covering the second wiring line (Fig. 14, (BG2).
As to claim 9, further, Kim discloses an opening Fig. 16, (CNT5) penetrating the overcoat layer (Fig. 14, (INS1) and the fourth portion (Fig. 14, (P4). However, the opening of Kim penetrates the fourth portion P4 and not the second portion P2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the opening penetrating portion P2 instead of portion P4, in the device of Kim, since in a lab, or manufacturing environment, it would be the choice of the designer to make such selection without affecting the design result negatively.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 PM.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights