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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a display substrate (par 0060 Fig 2 display module DISP), comprising:
a base substrate (par 0139 Fig 9 base substrate SUB), comprising:
a display region, and a frame region surrounding the display region (par 0061 Fig 2 base substrate SUB may be divided into a display region AA and a non-display [frame] region NA outside of the active area AA);
at least one circle of blocking dam, arranged around the display region in the frame region (par 0242 Fig 14 at least one protruding [circle of] DAM (Fig 9 DAM1,DAM2) may be disposed in the non-display region NA); and
a touch metal (par 0092 touch, metal) layer, located on a side, facing away from the base substrate, of a layer where the blocking dam is located (par 0160 Fig 9 the touch sensor metal TSM may be disposed on an encapsulating layer TFE, and is on a side, away from substrate SUB, of a layer on which blocking dam (DAM1/DAM2) is located), and
comprising a plurality of touch electrodes (par 0160 Fig 9 the touch sensor metal TSM comprises X and Y-touch electrodes X-TE and Y-TE), and
a plurality of touch signal lines electrically connected to the plurality of touch electrodes (paras 0133,0160 Figs 8,9 the touch sensor metal TSM comprises X and Y-touch electrode connecting lines X-CL and Y-CL and signal lines X-TL and Y-TL),
wherein
the plurality of touch electrodes are at least partially located in the display region (par 0063 Fig 3 the plurality of touch electrodes for the touch sensing can be disposed in the active area AA of the display panel DISP), and the plurality of touch signal lines are located in the frame region (par 0133 Figs 8,13 touch signal lines X-TL and Y-TL are located in the frame region NA; Fig 12 area 1200 par 0218);
the plurality of touch signal lines comprise:
a plurality of first routing wires and a plurality of second routing wires arranged in parallel in a first direction (par 0232-0233 Fig 13 first routing wires TL [L5 and rightward adjacent wires in annotated Fig 8 below] and second routing wires TL [L6 and leftward adjacent wires in annotated Fig 8 below] are disposed on the encapsulation layer ENCAP in the first non-active area NA1 and are arranged in parallel in a first Y direction in Figs 8,12), wherein
orthographic projections of the plurality of first routing wires on the base substrate are located between an orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate and the display region (par 0232-0233 Fig 13 first routing wires TL [L5 and rightward adjacent wires in annotated Fig 8 below] are disposed on the encapsulation layer ENCAP in the first non-active area NA1 between the dam DAM and the display region AA), and
orthographic projections of the plurality of second routing wires on the base substrate are located on a side, away from the display region, of the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate (par 0232-0233 Fig 13 second routing wires TL [L6 and leftward adjacent wires in annotated Fig 8 below] are disposed on the second non-active area NA2 outside the dam DAM away from the display region AA);
wherein
a shortest distance between the orthographic projections of the first routing wires on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate is greater than a shortest distance between the orthographic projections of the second routing wires on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate (Lee par 0233 Fig 13 first touch routing lines TL inside the dam DAM and on the encapsulation layer ENCAP are shown farther from dam DAM than are second touch routing lines TL outside the dam DAM).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 20 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of An et al. (Korea Patent Application KR 20200135910 A, hereinafter “An”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the display substrate according to claim 1. However, Lee appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
an organic insulation layer having a first groove, wherein the first groove is located between the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate and the orthographic projections of the plurality of first routing wires on the base substrate; and
a quantity N1 of the plurality of first routing wires meets a formula: N1 ≤ (D-d1-d2)/(d3+d4), and
a quantity N2 of the plurality of second routing wires meets a formula: N2 ≥ N-N1, wherein
D is a shortest distance between a boundary of the display region and the blocking dam,
d1 is a shortest distance between the first groove and the first routing wires, d2 is a width of the first groove in a second direction, d3 is a wire width of the first routing wires L14, d4 is a spacing between adjacent first routing wires, and N is a total quantity of the plurality of touch signal lines.
An teaches
an organic insulation layer having a first groove, wherein the first groove is located between the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate and the orthographic projections of the plurality of first routing wires on the base substrate (par 0123 Fig 11 organic insulation layer [within layer TFE Fig 7C par 0110] having a first groove between DAM1 and the touch signal lines TW=Fig 9 SL1, SL2).
a quantity N1 of the plurality of first routing wires meets a formula: N1 ≤ (D-d1-d2)/(d3+d4), and
a quantity N2 of the plurality of second routing wires meets a formula: N2 ≥ N-N1, wherein
D is a shortest distance between a boundary of the display region and the blocking dam,
d1 is a shortest distance between the first groove and the first routing wires, d2 is a width of the first groove in a second direction, d3 is a wire width of the first routing wires L14, d4 is a spacing between adjacent first routing wires, and N is a total quantity of the plurality of touch signal lines (one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that the number of first wires must fit in the available space, per formula: N1 < (D-d1-d2)/(d3+d4); and second wires will be the remainder of the total count of wires; such limitation does not involve novelty or an inventive step).
Lee and An are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the groove and routing wire numbers of An. The motivation would have been in order to provide flow control of encapsulation layer with a two dam structure wherein the two dams have differing heights.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein
the quantity N1 of the plurality of first routing wires is smaller than or equal to 27 (Lee par 0232-0233 Fig 13 first touch routing lines TL are disposed on the encapsulation layer ENCAP in the first non-active area NA1 inside the dam DAM and number 12), and
the quantity N2 of the plurality of second routing wires is smaller than or equal to 23 (Lee par 0232-0233 Fig 13 at least one second touch routing line TL are disposed on the second non-active area NA2 outside the dam DAM; Fig 13 teaches the number to be 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein
the organic insulation layer further comprises a second groove (An ‘252 par 0123 Fig 11 organic insulation layer [within layer TFE Fig 7C par 0110] having a second groove between DAM1 and DAM2), and the second groove is located on a side of the blocking dam away from the display region (An par 0123 Fig 11 second groove on a side of the blocking DAM1 away from the display region DA); and
the orthographic projections of the second routing wires on the base substrate are located in the second groove (Lee par 0256,0257 Fig 16 allows that second routing wires such as TL-b may be located in the second groove); wherein
in the second direction, the width of the first groove is smaller than a width of the second groove (An par 0123 Fig 11 width of the first groove is smaller than a width of the second groove).
Lee and An are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the groove and routing wire numbers of An. The motivation would have been in order to provide flow control of encapsulation layer with a two dam structure wherein the two dams have differing heights.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20220093693 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 9 , Lee teaches the display substrate according to claim 1. However, Lee appears not to expressly teach wherein the plurality of touch signal lines are divided into two groups, and
the two groups of touch signal lines are arranged symmetrically about a central axis of the base substrate in a second direction.
Kim teaches wherein the plurality of touch signal lines are divided into two groups, and
the two groups of touch signal lines are arranged symmetrically about a central axis of the base substrate in a second direction (par 0164 Fig 9 the two groups of touch signal lines connected to sensing pads PDX1, PDX2, PDY1, and PDY2 are arranged symmetrically).
Lee and Kim are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the symmetrical wiring of Kim. The motivation would have been in order to provide balanced wirelengths and impedances.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210200407 A1, hereinafter “Jang”).
Regarding Claim 12 , Lee teaches the display substrate according to claim 1. However, Lee appears not to expressly teach wherein
resistance values of the touch signal lines are the same approximately.
Jang teaches wherein resistance values of the touch signal lines are the same approximately (par 0090 Fig 13 it is possible to form the routing lines 160 so that they have the same resistance value by adjusting the lengths of the zigzag patterns of the routing lines 16).
Lee and Jang are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the similar line resistances of Jang. The motivation would have been in order to prevent the occurrence of variation in RC delay values of touch signals, thereby preventing deterioration in touch performance (Jang par 0088).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20200089350 A1, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the display substrate according to claim 1. However, Lee appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
at least one shielded wire, wherein the at least one shielded wire is located on at least one side of the plurality of first routing wires in a second direction, and/or located on at least one side of the plurality of second routing wires in a second direction; wherein the at least one shielded wire is arranged surrounding the touch signal lines containing the first routing wires, and/or the at least one shielded wire is arranged surrounding the touch signal lines containing the second routing wires.
Han teaches at least one shielded wire, wherein the at least one shielded wire is located on at least one side of the plurality of first routing wires in a second direction (par 0109 Fig 3 at least guard wire GL1 disposed on one side of first or second routing wires RXn_1 in a second vertical direction), and/or located on at least one side of the plurality of second routing wires in a second direction;
wherein the at least one shielded wire is arranged surrounding the touch signal lines containing the first routing wires (par 0109 Fig 3 guard wire GL1 is arranged surrounding first or second routing wires RXn_1), and/or the at least one shielded wire is arranged surrounding the touch signal lines containing the second routing wires.
Lee and Han are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the shielded/guard wire of Han. The motivation would have been in order to prevent a signal interference phenomenon that may occur between adjacent wirings (Han par 0114).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 15, wherein a quantity of the at least one shielded wire is two, one of the shielded wires is arranged on a side of the first routing wires adjacent to the display region in the second direction (Han par 0109 Fig 3 at least guard wire GL2 disposed on a side adjacent to the display region AA of first or second routing wires RXn_1 in a second vertical direction), and an other shielded wire is arranged on a side of the second routing wires away from the display region in the second direction (Han par 0109 Fig 3 at least guard wire GL1 disposed on a side away from the display region AA of first or second routing wires RXn_1 in a second vertical direction).
Lee and Han are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee with the shielded/guard wire of Han. The motivation would have been in order to prevent a signal interference phenomenon that may occur between adjacent wirings (Han par 0114).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Han (U.S. Patent Application 20200089350 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20220013607 A1, hereinafter “Lee ‘607”).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 16. However, Lee as modified appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
a crack detection line located on a side of the shielded wire away from the display region; and
the crack detection line strides over the blocking dam in a frame region where the first routing wires are located, and is located between the blocking dam and the display region in the other frame regions.
Lee ‘607 teaches
a crack detection line located on a side of the shielded wire away from the display region (par 0153 Fig 11 a crack detection line 80 may be arranged on the outer periphery of the shield layer 90); and
the crack detection line strides over the blocking dam in a frame region where the first routing wires are located (par 0070 terminals for connection of signal lines to an external circuit are provided in the peripheral area; signal lines such as crack detection line 80 must cross the several dams for contacting the terminals), and is located between the blocking dam and the display region in the other frame regions (par 0153 Fig 11 a crack detection line 80 is shown within the dam/walls and the display area).
Lee Han and Lee ‘607 are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate of Lee/Han with the crack detection line arrangement of Lee ‘607. The motivation would have been in order to detect a crack in the layers around the transmissive portion (Lee ‘607 par 0153).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210382572 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Han (U.S. Patent Application 20200089350 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20220013607 A1, hereinafter “Lee ‘607”), and Moon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20200401274 A1, hereinafter “Moon”).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 17. However, Lee as modified appears not to expressly teach further comprising:
a ground wire located between the shielded wire and the crack detection line, wherein a routing direction of the ground wire is the same as a routing direction of the shielded wire approximately.
Moon teaches a ground wire located between the shielded wire and the as Lee ‘607 teaches crack detection line along the edges of the panel at which cracks typically occur, the combination of Moon and Lee ‘607 would have been obvious).
Lee Han Lee ’607 and Moon are analogous art as they each pertain to touch display substrates. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch display substrate with shield-ground-panel edge arrangement of Lee/ Han/Lee ’607 with the crack detection line at panel’s edge arrangement of Lee ‘607 to arrive at a ground wire located between the shielded wire and the crack detection line, wherein a routing direction of the ground wire is the same as a routing direction of the shielded wire approximately. The motivation would have been in order to detect a crack in the layers around the transmissive [panel cutout] portion (Lee ’607 par 0153).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee as modified teaches the display substrate according to claim 18. However, Lee as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
in a direction away from one side of the base substrate, a distance between the first routing wires and the base substrate is greater than a distance between the second routing wires and the base substrate (Lee par 0221 Fig 13 teaches a distance between the first routing wires [TL in NA1] and the base substrate [below DSL1,DSL2] is greater than a distance between the second routing wires [TL in NA2] and the base substrate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 10-11, and 14 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 and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4:
While closest prior art Lee (20210382572 A1) teaches a portion of the limitations of Claim 4, namely “wherein
the plurality of touch signal lines further comprise:
a plurality of third routing wires and a plurality of fourth routing wires arranged in parallel in a second direction (par 0130 annotated Fig 8 above, third L1 and fourth L2 parallel and in second X direction), wherein
the second direction intersects with the first direction (horizontal/vertical);
the third routing wires and the first routing wires are of an integrated structure in a one-to-one correspondence mode (par 0130 annotated Fig 8 below, L1 and L5 integrated structure in a one-to-one correspondence mode), and
the fourth routing wires and the second routing wires are of an integrated structure in a one-to-one correspondence mode (par 0130 annotated Fig 8 below, L2 and L6 integrated structure in a one-to-one correspondence mode)”,
the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 4, namely "orthographic projections of the plurality of third routing wires and orthographic projections of the plurality of fourth routing wires on the base substrate stride over the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claims 5-8 and 10-11 would be allowable dependent on the allowability of Claim 4.
Claim 14:
While closest prior art Lee (20210382572 A1) teaches a portion of the limitations of Claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 14, namely "wherein the shortest distance between the orthographic projections of the first routing wires on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate ranges from 30 µm to 200 µm, and the shortest distance between the orthographic projections of the second routing wires on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the blocking dam on the base substrate ranges from 10 µm to 100 µm" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p 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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights