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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 6 and 19 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.
The claim states “a virtual line crossing a center between the first main part and the second main part is defined between the first main part and the second main part”. It is indefinite to state that a virtual line is defined without claiming how, in a physical sense, the virtual line is defined.
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.
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), 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) 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).
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 substantially 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 first to fourth surfaces (TX1-TX4), and wherein the inspection line comprises first to fourth inspection lines (L1-L4) respectively corresponding to the first to fourth surfaces (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 to fourth inspection lines (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) 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) 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) 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.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 a 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), and wherein a virtual line crossing a center between the first main part and the second main part is defined between the first main part and the second main part (See 112 above) (A virtual line can be mental drawn and defined between DSP of row 1 and columns 1 and 2.).
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 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.).
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), and wherein a virtual line crossing a center between the first main part and the second main part is defined between the first main part and the second main part (See 112 above) (A virtual line can be mental drawn and defined between DSP of row 1 and columns 1 and 2.).
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 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.), 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 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.)).
6. 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]).
7. 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.).
Conclusion
8. 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
Prosecution Insights