Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly amended subject matter “wherein the inspection line and the trace line are in a same row extending in a first direction crossing the second direction” and “the signal line and the first sub-inspection line, and the second sub-inspection line are in a same row extending in a first direction crossing the second direction”. The current application describes inspection line(s) IL and trace line(s) TL in view of figures 4A-6. However, at no point does the specification use the word “row”. The claims state that the row extends in a first direction crossing the second direction. In view of figure 4A, for example, it appears an imaginary concept must be applied to identify an imaginary row to somehow contain the inspection lines and trace lines. However, this is speculation without a defined means of interpretation to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art the intention of the claimed limitation.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As shown above, the current application does not provide a definition or correlation of “rows” or how the trace line and inspection line are considered to be in a same undisclosed row that extends in the first direction crossing the second direction. The subject matter is considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(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) 1-3, 8-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tabatake (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0031548).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tabatake discloses a mother substrate (figure 6 motherboard MB) for a sensor (Figures 1-5 touch panel TP with touch electrodes TX), the mother substrate (MB) comprising:
a base substrate (10); and
a sensor substrate (11) above the base substrate (10) (figure 3 depicts 11 above 10), and comprising:
a main part (figure 1 display panel PNL) comprising:
a sensing area (Figure 2 TP [0024] to be disposed to overlap the display area DA; figure 3 depicts touch electrodes TX overlapping pixel electrodes PE);
a non-sensing area (PA+MA) surrounding the sensing area (TP) in plan view ([0018] PA surrounds DA (which is overlapped by TP [0024]). figure 1 and [0023] describing mounting area MA in the peripheral area outside of the display area DA.);
a sensing electrode (TX) in the sensing area (TP) (Figures 2 and 3); and
a trace line (Figures 4-5 LL1-LL16) in the non-sensing area (PA+MA), extending in a second direction (Figures 4-5 depict LL1-LL16 extending in a vertical direction (as oriented by the figure) before extending horizontally to connect with their respective rows; with the exception of LL1 and LL16 which additionally extending vertically a second time to connect with columns.), and electrically connected with the sensing electrode (TX) ([0064]); and
a peripheral part (Figures 4-5 outside of CL2) surrounding the main part (PNL) in plan view, and comprising an inspection line (L1-L18) extending in the second direction (L1-L12 each extending vertically with the exception of L5-L8 and L13-16 that comprise a second extension horizontally followed by a third extension vertically), spaced apart (via TCN1+TNC2) from the trace line (LL1-LL16) and having a same shape ([0044] and [0064] describes leads LL as lines and leads L as lines) as the trace line (LL1-LL16), wherein the inspection line (L1-L18) and the trace line (LL1-LL16) are in a same row extending in a first direction crossing the second direction (Figure 6 depicts a mother board depicting at minimum three display devices DSP per row, as oriented in the figure, and three displays per column. Each display DSP comprises its own inspection line(s) L and trace line LL. DSP row 1 column 1 comprises L and LL in the same row 1 extending in the row direction (horizontal) that crosses the second direction (vertical).).
Regarding claim 2, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the inspection line comprises: a first sub-inspection line (L1 for example) spaced apart from the trace line (LL1 for example) in a first direction (X); and a second sub-inspection line (L2 for example) spaced apart from the first sub-inspection line (L1) in the first direction (X).
Regarding claim 3, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 2, wherein a distance between the trace line (LL1) and the first sub-inspection line (L1) is equal to a distance between the first sub-inspection line (L1) and the second sub-inspection line (L2) (Figure 4 depicts a substantially equal distance between the claimed components relative to other displays DSP (as depicted in figure 6).).
Regarding claim 8, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the main part has a quadrangular shape (figure 1 PNL depicted rectangular) comprising a first surface, a second surface, a third surface, and a fourth surface (TX1-TX4), and
wherein the inspection line comprises a first inspection line, second inspection line, third inspection line, and fourth inspection line (L1-L4) respectively corresponding to the first surface, second surface , third surface, and fourth surface (TX1-TX4) ([0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 8, wherein the peripheral part (Figure 5 outside of CL2) further comprises a connecting line (LR1) electrically connecting the first inspection line, the second inspection line, the third inspection line, and the fourth inspection line (L1-L4) ([0064] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 9, wherein the connecting line is configured to receive a ground voltage ([0064] and [0069] describes PDG1 receives a ground voltage and is connected to LR1).
Regarding claim 11, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the sensor substrate further comprises a cutting line (CL2) for dividing the main part (PNL) from the peripheral part (outside of CL2) ([0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 11, wherein the cutting line is between the trace line (LL1-LL16) and the inspection line (L1-L18) (Figure 5 depicts CL2 therebetween).
Regarding independent claim 16, Tabatake discloses a mother substrate (figure 6 motherboard MB) for a sensor (Figures 1-5 touch panel TP with touch electrodes TX), the mother substrate (MB) comprising:
a base substrate (10); and
a sensor substrate (11) above the base substrate (10) (figure 3 depicts 11 above 10), and comprising:
a main part (figure 1 display panel PNL) comprising:
a sensing area (Figure 2 TP [0024] to be disposed to overlap the display area DA; figure 3 depicts touch electrodes TX overlapping pixel electrodes PE);
a non-sensing area (PA+MA) surrounding the sensing area (TP) ([0018] PA surrounds DA (which is overlapped by TP [0024]). figure 1 and [0023] describing mounting area MA in the peripheral area outside of the display area DA.); and
a signal line (L1) extending in a second direction (Figures 4-5 depict LL1-LL16 extending in a vertical direction (as oriented by the figure) before extending horizontally to connect with their respective rows; with the exception of LL1 and LL16 which additionally extending vertically a second time to connect with columns.) in the non-sensing area (PA+MA); and
a peripheral part (Figures 4-5 outside of CL2) surrounding the main part (PNL) in plan view, and comprising an inspection line (L2-L18) spaced apart (via TCN1+TNC2) from the signal line (LL1-LL16) and comprising:
a first sub-inspection ([0063]-[0064]) line (L2) extending in the second direction (L1-L12 each extending vertically with the exception of L5-L8 and L13-16 that comprise a second extension horizontally followed by a third extension vertically) spaced apart from the signal line (L1) by a first distance (distance depicted in figures 4-5 to equate to a pad PD distance); and
a second sub-inspection line (L3) extending in the second direction (L1-L12 each extending vertically with the exception of L5-L8 and L13-16 that comprise a second extension horizontally followed by a third extension vertically) spaced apart from the first sub-inspection line (L2) by the first distance (L2 and L3 are separated also by the same pad PD distance) in a direction opposite to a direction in which the signal line is located (While not indefinite the wording is vague. This describes a signal line to exists (located) in a direction. The signal line is a 3D object and exists in all 3D directions. This describes a mental practice for interpretation. Prior art Tabatake figure 4 mental practice of place a 2D graph with point 0,0 existing on L2 making the direction in which L1 is located -X opposite to the positive X spacing regarding the distance of the pad PD.), the signal line and the first sub-inspection line, and the second sub-inspection line are in a same row extending in a first direction crossing the second direction (Figure 6 depicts a mother board depicting at minimum three display devices DSP per row, as oriented in the figure, and three displays per column. Each display DSP comprises its own inspection line(s) L and trace line LL. DSP row 1 column 1 comprises L and LL in the same row 1 extending in the row direction (horizontal) that crosses the second direction (vertical).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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) 4-7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatake in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0004601), herein after referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the trace line comprises: a first trace line (LL1 for example) connected to one end of the sensing electrode (TX1); and [ ].
Tabatake does not specifically disclose a second trace line connected to an opposite end of the sensing electrode that is opposite the one end of the sensing electrode.
Kim discloses a first trace line (Figure 3 TL1 left side) connected to one end (left side) of the sensing electrode (SE1); and a second trace line (TL1 right side) connected to an opposite end (right side) of the sensing electrode (SE1) that is opposite the one end (left side) of the sensing electrode (SE1) ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Tabatake with the known technique of a second trace line connected to an opposite end of the sensing electrode that is opposite the one end of the sensing electrode yielding the predictable results of reducing signal transmission delay as disclosed by Kim ([0142]).
Regarding claim 5, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the inspection line comprises: a first inspection line (L17) spaced apart from the first trace line (LL1) in the first direction (-X); and a second inspection line (L2) spaced apart from the second trace line (LL2) in a direction opposite (+X) to the first direction (-X).
Regarding claim 6, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 5, wherein the main part further comprises a first main part (Figure 6 row 1 column 1 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)) and a second main part (Figure 6 row 1 column 2 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)) aligned in the first direction (X).
Regarding claim 7, Tabatake and Kim discloses the mother substrate of claim 6, wherein the first inspection line (Kim: Figure 3 TL1 left side) corresponding to the first trace line (Tabatake: Figure 4 LL1) in the first main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 DSP row 1 column 1), and the second inspection line (Tabatake: Figure 4 L2) corresponding to the second trace line (Kim: figure 3 TL1 right side) in the second main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 DSP row 1 column 2), have symmetrical shapes with respect to a virtual line crossing a center between the first main part and the second main part (Tabatake: figures 4-5 have symmetry with a vertical virtual center line between itself and figure 6 symmetry between adjacent DSP in the same row.).
Regarding claim 17, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 16, wherein the main part further comprises a sensing electrode (TX) in the sensing area (TP) (Figures 2 and 3), and wherein the signal line (L1) comprises: a first signal line (LL1) connected to one end of the sensing electrode (TX)([0064]); and [ ].
Tabatake does not specifically disclose a second signal line connected to an opposite end of the sensing electrode that is opposite the one end of the sensing electrode.
Kim discloses a first signal line (Figure 3 TL1 left side) connected to one end (left side) of the sensing electrode (SE1); and a second signal line (TL1 right side) connected to an opposite end (right side) of the sensing electrode (SE1) that is opposite the one end (left side) of the sensing electrode (SE1) ([0129]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Tabatake with the known technique of a second signal line connected to an opposite end of the sensing electrode that is opposite the one end of the sensing electrode yielding the predictable results of reducing signal transmission delay as disclosed by Kim ([0142]).
Regarding claim 18, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 17, wherein the first sub-inspection line (L2) and the second sub-inspection line (L3) correspond (physical spacing thereto, similar function, existing in the display are all examples of an undefined correspondence) to the first signal line (L1), and wherein the inspection line (L2-L18) further comprises: a third sub-inspection line (L4) spaced apart from the second signal line (L3) by the first distance (L3 and L4 are separated also by the same pad PD distance); and a fourth sub-inspection line (L7) spaced apart from the third sub-inspection line (L4) by the first distance (L4 and L7 are separated also by the same pad PD distance, [0067] describes L7 to be bundled with L3 for pads 3 and 7. The measurement take from the node connection.) in a direction opposite to a direction in which the second signal line (L3) is located (While not indefinite the wording is vague. This describes a signal line to exists (located) in a direction. The signal line is a 3D object and exists in all 3D directions. This describes a mental practice for interpretation. Prior art Tabatake figure 4 mental practice of place a 2D graph with point 0,0 existing on L4 making the direction in which L3 is located -X opposite to the positive X spacing regarding the distance of the pad PD.).
Regarding claim 19, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 18, wherein the main part further comprises a first main part (Figure 6 row 1 column 1 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)) and a second main part (Figure 6 row 1 column 2 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)) that are aligned (in the X direction).
Regarding claim 20, Tabatake and Kim discloses the mother substrate of claim 19, wherein the first sub-inspection line (Tabatake: L2; Kim: figure 3 TL1 left side) corresponding to the first signal line (Tabatake: L1) in the first main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 row 1 column 1 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)), and the third sub-inspection line (Tabatake: L4) corresponding to the second signal line (Kim: figure 3 TL1 right side) in the second main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 row 1 column 2 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)), have symmetrical shapes with respect to a virtual line crossing a center between the first main part and the second main part (Tabatake: figures 4-5 have symmetry with a vertical virtual center line between itself and figure 6 symmetry between adjacent DSP in the same row.), and
wherein the second sub-inspection line (Tabatake: L3) corresponding to the first signal line (Tabatake: L1) in the first main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 row 1 column 1 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)), and the fourth sub-inspection line (Tabatake: L7) corresponding to the second signal line (Kim: figure 3 TL1 right side) in the second main part (Tabatake: Figure 6 row 1 column 2 DSP comprising PNL (figure 1)), have symmetrical shapes with respect to the virtual line (Tabatake: figures 4-5 have symmetry with a vertical virtual center line between itself and figure 6 symmetry between adjacent DSP in the same row.)).
7. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatake in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0280855), herein after referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 11.
Tabatake does not specifically disclose wherein the cutting line comprises a metal layer, and an insulating layer above the metal layer.
Yang discloses wherein the cutting line comprises a metal layer, and an insulating layer above the metal layer (Figure 7 conductive layer 130a disposed between the substrate 110a and insulator 150e as described in [0056]. [0037] describes conductive layer 130a is made of metal. Figure 2A depicts the overhead view with peripheral region 112 adjacent to the cutting line 114. Figure 7 depicts the peripheral region 112 adjacent the cutting line as described in [0056].).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Tabatake’s cutting line with the known technique of wherein the cutting line comprises a metal layer, and an insulating layer above the metal layer yielding the predictable results of reducing laser absorption during the cutting step and improving cutting yield as disclosed by Yang ([0053]).
8. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabatake in view of Saito (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0092610).
Regarding claim 14, Tabatake discloses the mother substrate of claim 1.
Tabatake does not specifically disclose wherein the trace line and the inspection line comprise a first metal layer, and a second metal layer above the first metal layer.
Saito discloses wherein the trace line and the inspection line comprise a first metal layer, and a second metal layer above the first metal layer (Figure 7 and [0044] describes lines to be formed by a first metal layer 38A an intermediate anti-oxidation layer 38B and a top metal layer 38C.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Tabatake with the known technique of wherein the trace line and the inspection line comprise a first metal layer, and a second metal layer above the first metal layer yielding the predictable results of a thinner substrate that may prevent damage to electrodes as disclosed by Saito ([0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Saito discloses the mother substrate of claim 14, wherein the trace line and the inspection line further comprise an anti-oxidation film between the first metal layer and the second metal layer (Figure 7 and [0044] describes lines to be formed by a first metal layer 38A an intermediate anti-oxidation layer 38B and a top metal layer 38C.).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered and relate towards newly amended subject matter. Please refer to the above office action as rebuttal. This action is final necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itoh (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0208801) inspection lines (abstract)
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 CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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 E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
