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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
1111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses a voltage line (as labeled by examiner above – combination of 261 in 240 region and anode electrode in 214 (par [0075]) which together forms a voltage line which is) configured to supply a voltage to a display element inside the display area,
wherein the voltage line extends from under an end of a planarization layer past an end of the bank.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park discloses a voltage line 114”/114-2/131’ configured to supply a common voltage to a display element inside the display area (par [0077]),
wherein the voltage line (114” which is a portion of the voltage which) extends from under an end of a planarization layer 105 past an end of the bank.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Choi et al. 20190378889 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-14, 16-20 and 22 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.
Claim 11 recites “near a side”, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Kim et al. 20180033998 (Kim).
PNG
media_image3.png
768
1217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 2C of Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 200 including a display area (dotted area), a non-display area 240, and a pad area (area 150 and other empty space in 240 where pad can be placed), the non- display area being disposed outside the display area, and the pad area being disposed on one side of the non-display area;
a pixel-defining layer 217 in the display area;
a first restriction dam (middle 280) in the non-display area and surrounding the display area;
a second restriction dam (right 280) in the non-display area and surrounding the display area between the display area and the first restriction dam, the second restriction dam comprising at least one layer including a same material as the pixel-defining layer and disposed to be spaced apart from the pixel defining layer;
a bank disposed (left 280) outside of and spaced apart from the first restriction dam, the bank comprising at least one layer including a same material as the pixel-defining layer; and
PNG
media_image1.png
557
1111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a voltage line (as labeled by examiner above – combination of 261 in 240 region and anode electrode in 214 (par [0075]) which together forms a voltage line which is) configured to supply a voltage to a display element inside the display area,
wherein the voltage line extends from under an end of a planarization layer past an end of the bank,
wherein the first restriction dam, the second restriction dam and the bank are disposed on the voltage line to be overlapped with the voltage line between the display area and the pad area (as labeled by examiner above).
Claims 1-2, 5-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. 20180151838.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1-3 of Park discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 101 including a display area A/A, a non-display area I/A, and a pad area (par [0039] - a connection interface (a pad, a bump, a pin, etc.) disposed in the inactive area I/A), the non- display area being disposed outside the display area, and the pad area being disposed on one side of the non-display area;
a pixel-defining layer 106 in the display area;
a first restriction dam 154 in the non-display area and surrounding the display area;
a second restriction dam 152 in the non-display area and surrounding the display area between the display area A/A and the first restriction dam 154, the second restriction dam comprising at least one layer including a same material as the pixel-defining layer (par [0083] - the upper layer 152-2 of the first wall 152 may be made of the same material as the bank 106) and disposed to be spaced apart from the pixel defining layer;
a bank (123, 121, 156 and 160 combination) disposed outside of and spaced apart from the first restriction dam, the bank comprising at least one layer including a same material as the pixel-defining layer (par [0086] - the configuration and functionality of the second wall 156 are identical to those of the first wall 152); and
PNG
media_image2.png
550
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a voltage line 114”/114-2/131’ configured to supply a common voltage to a display element inside the display area (par [0077]),
wherein the voltage line (114” which is a portion of the voltage which) extends from under an end of a planarization layer 105 past an end of the bank,
wherein the first restriction dam 154, the second restriction dam 152 and the bank (123, 121, 156 and 160 combination) are disposed on the voltage line to be overlapped with the voltage line between the display area and the pad area (see fig. 3C of Park above).
Regarding claim 2, fig. 3 of Park discloses wherein the voltage line includes a first voltage line 114-2 and a second voltage line (114”/131’), the first voltage line being between the display area and the pad area, and the second voltage line surrounding two opposites ends of the first voltage line and at least a portion of the display area, and wherein an outer end of the second voltage line (left end of 114”) facing the pad area is covered by the bank between the display area and the pad area.
Regarding claim 5, fig. 3 of Park discloses wherein an outer end of the first voltage line that faces the pad area is covered by the bank between two opposite ends of the second voltage line.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 5 of Park discloses wherein the outer end of the first voltage line and the outer end of the second voltage line are on a same line (see where 114” and 114-2 intersect forming a same line).
Regarding claim 7, fig. 3 of Park discloses wherein the second voltage line extends to the outside of the bank from a region surrounding the display area (see 131’).
Regarding claim 8, fig. 3 of Park discloses further comprising: a crack prevention portion 160 extending along an edge of the substrate, and a cover layer 145 covering the crack prevention layer,
wherein an end of the second voltage line (see end of 131’) extending to the outside of the bank is covered by the cover layer.
Applicant’s claims 8 does not distinguish over the Park et al. reference regardless of the process used to form the encapsulated air gap because only the final product is relevant, not the process of making such as “the crack prevention layer being formed by removing a portion of inorganic layers stacked on the substrate,”.
Note that a “product by process claim " is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claim 9, fig. 3 of Park disclose wherein a height of the second restriction dam is less than a height of the first restriction dam, and wherein the first restriction dam and the second restriction dam are on the second voltage line between the display area and the pad area.
Regarding claim 10, fig. 3 of Park discloses further comprising an encapsulation layer 120 on the display element and including a first inorganic encapsulation layer 121, an organic encapsulation layer 122, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 123 that are sequentially stacked, wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer directly contacts the voltage line between the display area and the pad area.
Regarding claim 21, fig. 3 of Park disclose wherein a height (top most height of 123) of the bank is higher than those of the first restriction dam and the second restriction dam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claims 3-4, Park does not disclose a difference between a width of the bank and a width of the second voltage line overlapping the bank is is 1.5 μm or more and less than the width of the bank between the display area and the pad area, the width of the bank being taken in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the bank, and the width of the second voltage line being covered by the bank, wherein a distance between the outer end of the second voltage line and an outer surface of the bank is 1.5 m or more and less than the width of the bank.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim comprising wherein a difference between a width of the bank and a width of the second voltage line overlapping the bank is is 1.5 μm or more and less than the width of the bank between the display area and the pad area, the width of the bank being taken in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the bank, and the width of the second voltage line being covered by the bank, wherein a distance between the outer end of the second voltage line and an outer surface of the bank is 1.5 m or more and less than the width of the bank in order to meet applicant’s design needs such as resistance and capacitance requirement.
Claims 11-14, 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. 20170033312 (Kim312) in view of Choi et al. 20190378889.
PNG
media_image5.png
734
1135
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, figs. 1, 2 and 8 of Kim312 discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 including a display area DA, a non-display area, and a pad area PAD (see fig. 1), the non-display area being outside the display area, and the pad area being on one side of the non-display area;
at least one restriction dam (51/53) in the non-display area and surrounding the display area;
a bank 250 disposed outside the at least one restriction dam; and
and a voltage line (10/420/430 and 20/420/430 – this is connection forms a voltage line) configured to supply a voltage to a display element inside the display area,
PNG
media_image6.png
743
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the voltage line includes a first voltage line 10 and a second voltage line 20, the first voltage line comprises a first portion (11/10/12a) disposed between the display area and the pad area, and extending in a first direction (across the page), and first connectors (420/430) connected to the first portion and extending in a second direction (up and down the page) substantially perpendicular to the first direction from the first portion to the pad area,
the second voltage line comprises a second portion (as labeled by examiner above) extending in the second direction and surrounding two opposites ends of the first portion 11 along the first direction and at least a portion of the display area, a third portion (as labeled by examiner above) connected to the second portion and extending in the first direction, and second connectors (22/420/430) connected to the third portion and extending in the second direction from the third portion to the pad area,
PNG
media_image7.png
727
535
media_image7.png
Greyscale
an outer end of the third portion which extends in the first direction (across the page dimension which extends across the page) overlaps the bank between the display area and the pad area, and
an outer end of the first portion (see end of 12a overlapping 250) overlaps the bank between the display area and the pad area,
wherein the first portion (10a/11 - copper – par [0130-0131]) and the first connectors (430 which is part of connector is of copper – par [0076] and 420 maybe form of G gate electrode which is copper – par [0087]) of the first voltage line are formed of a same material (copper) and are formed on a same plane (top plane of substrate), and
wherein the third portion and the second connectors of the second voltage line are formed of a same material (copper – par [0130-0132]) and are formed on a same plane (top plane of substrate).
Kim312 does not disclose that the first portion and the first connectors of the first voltage line are formed at the same time using a same material, and does not disclose that the third portion and the second connectors of the second voltage line are formed at the same time using a same material.
However, applicant’s claim 11 does not distinguish over the Kim312 reference regardless of the process used to form the first portion and the first connectors of the first voltage line and the third portion and the second connectors of the second voltage line because only the final product is relevant, not the process of making such as “are formed at the same time using a same material”.
Note that a “product by process claim " is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Kim312 does not disclose of a crack prevention portion extending in one or more columns along at least a portion of an edge of the substrate wherein the crack prevention portion is disposed on the substrate near a side of the bank opposite the at least one restriction dam.
PNG
media_image8.png
414
676
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, fig. 3 of Choi disclose a display device a crack prevention portion 630 extending in one or more columns along at least a portion of an edge of a substrate 100a wherein the crack prevention portion is disposed on the substrate near a side of a bank 610 opposite at least one restriction dam 500.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form a display device of Kim312 further comprising a crack prevention portion extending in one or more columns along at least a portion of an edge of the substrate wherein the crack prevention portion is disposed on the substrate near a side of the bank opposite the at least one restriction dam such as taught by Choi in order to prevent cracks (par [0087] of Choi).
Regarding claim 12, fig. 8 of Kim312 discloses wherein the at least one restriction dam includes a first restriction dam and a second restriction dam, the second restriction dam being between the display area and the first restriction dam, and the first restriction dam and the second restriction dam are on the second voltage line between the display area and the pad area.
Regarding claims 13-14, Kim312 does not discloses wherein a difference between a width of the bank and a width of the second voltage line overlapping the bank is is 1.5 μm or more and less than the width of the bank between the display area and the pad area, the width of the bank being taken in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the bank, and the width of the second voltage line being covered by the bank, wherein a distance between the outer end of the second voltage line and an outer surface of the bank is 1.5 m or more and less than the width of the bank.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim comprising wherein a difference between a width of the bank and a width of the second voltage line overlapping the bank is is 1.5 μm or more and less than the width of the bank between the display area and the pad area, the width of the bank being taken in a direction perpendicular to a lengthwise direction of the bank, and the width of the second voltage line being covered by the bank, wherein a distance between the outer end of the second voltage line and an outer surface of the bank is 1.5 m or more and less than the width of the bank in order to meet applicant’s design needs such as resistance and capacitance requirement.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 8 of Kim312 discloses wherein the outer end of the first voltage line and the outer end of the second voltage line are on the same line (layer 230 is the same line).
Regarding claim 17, figs. 1 and 8 of Kim312 discloses wherein an end of a portion (portion 21 connected to 22 is an end portion), extending in a direction (across the page) intersecting the first direction, of the second portion is covered by a cover layer 310b/330b including an organic material 330b, and the end of the portion is closer to an edge of the substrate than the display area.
Regarding claim 18, fig. 2 of Choi discloses wherein the crack prevention layer is formed by removing a portion of inorganic layers stacked on the substrate, wherein a cover layer (530/510/650) covers the crack prevention portion.
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to form display device wherein the crack prevention layer is formed by removing a portion of inorganic layers stacked on the substrate, wherein a cover layer covers the crack prevention portion in order to protect the crack prevention portion.
Regarding claim 19, fig. 6 of Kim312 discloses an encapsulation layer on the display element and including a first inorganic encapsulation layer 310a, an organic encapsulation layer 330a, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 310b that are sequentially stacked, wherein the organic encapsulation 330a layer is inside a region partitioned by the restriction dam.
Kim does not disclose that the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer extend to the bank.
However, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim further comprising the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer extend to the bank in order to ensure that the encapsulation layer seal the whole substrate and prevent external oxygen and moisture from permeating into the display unit.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 6 of Kim312 discloses wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer directly contacts a voltage 30a, but does not disclose wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer directly contacts the second voltage line between the restriction dam and the pad area.
However, it would have been obvious to form a device wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer directly contacts the second voltage line between the at least one restriction dam and the pad area to ensure that the encapsulation layer seal the whole substrate and prevent external oxygen and moisture from permeating into the display unit.
Regarding claim 22, Kim312 does not disclose wherein a height of an upper most surface of the bank is higher than those of the first restriction dam and the second restriction dam.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim312 comprising wherein a height of an upper most surface of the bank is higher than those of the first restriction dam and the second restriction dam in order to control overflow of encapsulation step.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached Max flex.
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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2829