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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21 and 22 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.
Claim 21 has been amended to require a self-repairing material which “is configured to repair broken portions of the plurality of sharp corner structures”. This limitation was not present in the Application as originally filed states that the “microcapsule self-repairing material . . . may be self-repaired”. That is, the self-repairing material repairs itself, not the broken sharp corner structures which are distinct from the self-repairing material.
Claim 22 depends form claim 21 and is, therefore, also rejected.
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, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 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 1 describes a plurality of stepped structures and a plurality of sharp corner structures and that each of the stepped structures includes a second plane and each of the sharp corner structures includes a fourth plane. As such, the limitation of a projection length of the fourth plane in comparison to that of the second plane is indefinite as it is unclear which of the fourth and second planes are intended to be references. For the purpose of this Office action, the limitation concerning relative projection lengths is interpreted as being satisfy if the projection length of any of the fourth planes is less than the projection length of any of the second planes.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9-10 depend from claim 1 and are, therefore, also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 2018/0061910 A1; hereinafter Cai).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a flexible display panel (Fig. 14 which is an “organic light-emitting display panel” (¶ 0036) which is flexible (“the substrate . . . may be a flexible substrate” in ¶ 0043 of Cai)), wherein the flexible display panel comprises:
an array substrate (combination of 10 and 20 in Fig. 14; “The organic light-emitting display panel . . . includes a substrate 10 [and] an array layer 20” (¶ 0036));
an organic light-emitting layer (33 in Fig. 14; “organic light-emitting device 30 . . . includes . . . light-emitting layer 33” (¶ 0036) which is “an organic light-emitting layer” (¶ 0003)), wherein the organic light emitting layer is disposed on the array substrate (as seen in Fig. 14, the organic light-emitting layer 33 is on portion 20 of the array substrate);
a dam (“bank 50” in Fig. 14, ¶ 0042), wherein the dam is disposed on the array substrate (as seen in Fig. 14, the dam is on portion 20 of the array substrate) and disposed to surround the organic light emitting layer (as seen in Fig. 16 of Cai, dam 50 besets all sides of active area AA in which the organic light emitting layer is placed (¶ 0036); Fig. 14 being a cross sectional view of Fig. 16 (¶ 0062)); and
an encapsulation layer (“encapsulation film 40” in Fig. 14, ¶ 0058), wherein the encapsulation layer covers the organic light emitting layer and the dam (as seen in Fig. 14, encapsulation layer 40 covers both the organic light emitting layer 33 and dam 50), and the encapsulation layer comprises ink (“encapsulation layer may be made via ink jet printing” (¶ 0058)),
wherein in a cross-sectional view of the flexible display panel (such as Fig. 14) the dam comprises a top surface (top surface of the dam 50 as seen in Fig. 14) away from the array substrate (see Fig. 14), a bottom surface (bottom surface of the dam 50 as seen in Fig. 14) opposite the top surface, a first side surface (right side surface of the dam 50 as seen in Fig. 14) close to the organic light emitting layer (see Fig. 14), and a second side surface (left side surface of the dam 50 as seen in Fig. 14) away from the organic light emitting layer (see Fig. 14).
The embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Cai does not have a second side surface disposed with a plurality of sharp corner structures or a first side surface disposed with a stepped structure along the direction from the top surface towards the bottom surface of the dam.
However, Cai further discloses a different embodiment in which the profile of the dam 50 has a stepped structure on both the first and second side surfaces (Fig. 10 of Cai, ¶ 0054).
Cai discloses a benefit to this configuration of the dam 50 in that “the side encapsulation effect can be reinforced” (¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have modified the embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Cai to have the dam structure of the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 of Cai for this benefit. In the resulting configuration, a plurality of sharp corner structures are continuously connected to one another along a direction from the top surface towards the bottom surface of the dam to form the second side surface (side facing away from the light emitting layer in Fig. 10) and a plurality of stepped structures is defined by the first side surface (opposite side) along the direction from the top surface towards the bottom surface of the dam (see Fig. 10).
Further, each of the plurality of stepped structured is formed by a first plane (horizontal plane in Fig. 10) and a second plane (diagonal plane in Fig. 10) intersecting each other, the first plane being parallel to the array substrate;
each of the plurality of sharp corner structures is formed by a third plane (horizontal plane) and a fourth plane (diagonal plane in Fig. 10) intersecting each other, the third plane being parallel to the array substrate; and
wherein a projection length of one of the fourth planes (bottom fourth plane in Fig. 10) in a direction perpendicular to the array substrate is less than a projection length of one of the second planes (top second plane) in the direction perpendicular to the array substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Cai discloses the flexible display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. The embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Cai does not have a second side surface disposed with a stepped structure.
However, Cai further discloses different embodiment in which the profile of the dam 50 has a stepped structure on both the first and second side surfaces (Fig. 10 of Cai, ¶ 0054).
Cai discloses a benefit to this configuration of the dam 50 in that “the side encapsulation effect can be reinforced” (¶ 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have modified the embodiment shown in Figs. 14 and 18 of Cai to have the dam structure of the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 of Cai for this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the second side surface will be disposed with a stepped structure (see Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Song et al. (US 2019/0058161 A1; hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 6, Cai discloses the flexible display panel of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai does not disclose the inclusion of a microcapsule self-repairing film disposed on the sharp corner structure.
Song, in the same field of endeavor, teaches forming flexible display panels to form an encapsulation structure which alternates encapsulation layers with a microcapsule self-repairing film layer (“the encapsulation structure 03 includes a plurality of film layers [including an] organic layer 032 [which] includes polymer matrixes 0321 and repairing microstructures 0322.” (¶ 0051 of Song). “The microstructure 0322 has a shape of a capsule” (¶ 0053) which “realizes the self-repairing of the encapsulation structure 03.” (¶ 0060). The organic layer 032 is, therefore, a microcapsule self-repairing film layer. See also Fig. 4 of Song which shows two encapsulation layers 031 with the microcapsule self-repairing film layer 032 between them.)
Song discloses a benefit to forming the encapsulation structure to have an encapsulation structure comprising a microcapsule self-repairing film layer between encapsulation layers in that it can repair cracks in the encapsulation structure and, therefore, “extends the service life of the encapsulation structure.” (¶ 0060).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to modify the flexible display panel of Cai to form an encapsulation structure with two of Cai’s encapsulation layers with a microcapsule self-repairing layer between them as taught by Song for the aforementioned benefit extending the service life of the encapsulation structure. Because Cai already disclosed that the encapsulation layer disposed on the sharp corner structure of the second side surface of the dam (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1, above), in the device of the modification the microcapsule self-repairing film layer will also be disposed on the sharp corner structures.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Im et al. (US 2021/0313494 A1; hereinafter Im).
Regarding claim 7, Cai discloses the flexible display panel of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cai discloses that the dam is beneficial in that it “improve[s] the aqueous vapor blocking effect of the side” to protect the display region (¶ 0010 of Cai). However, Cai does not disclose the inclusion of a hydrophobic film layer on the dam which would further improve the aqueous vapor blocking effect. As such, the device of Cai can be considered a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
Im, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a comparable device (Fig. 9 of Im shows a flexible display panel (“[FIG] 9 [is a] display device”, ¶ 0036 of Im, which “may be bent”, ¶ 0057)) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention (the dam 70 in Fig. 9 of Im has a hydrophobic film layer 8 formed thereon which increases hydrophobicity of the dam; “a hydrophobic layer 8 (referred to as a third hydrophobic layer 8) may be formed above (or on) . . . the dam structure 70”, ¶ 0072 of Im).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application could have applied the improvement of a hydrophobic film layer as taught by Im in the same way to the base device of Cai (Im discloses that the formation of the hydrophobic film layer 8 to the dam 70 is the result of a surface treatment step which reacts to the organic material of the dam (¶ 0091 of Im) and the dam of Cai is similarly formed from organic material (“the material of the bank includes an organic material”, ¶ 0036 of Cai), so the same hydrophobic film forming technique may be used, and the results (i.e., the formation of a hydrophobic film layer on the dam of Cai) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).
Because, as discussed above,
(1) the prior art contained a base device upon which claim 7 can be seen as an improvement;
(2) the prior art contained a comparable device that has been improved in the same way as claim 7; and
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Application could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a hydrophobic film layer covering each of the top surface, the first side surface, and the second side surface of the dam as it is the result of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143(I)(C)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fan et al. (CN 111710700 A; hereinafter Fan, a copy of which and a translation for reference were already provided).
Regarding claim 9, Cai discloses the flexible display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. The embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Cai does not have a plurality of dams.
However, Cai discloses an embodiment in which the flexible display panel comprises a plurality of dams (individual dams 51 and 52 in Fig. 15 of Cai).
Cai discloses a benefit to using a plurality of dams in that a “second [dam] functions to further reinforc[e] the prevent of crack extension” (¶ 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have modified the embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Cai to have the dam structure of the embodiment shown in Fig. 15 of Cai which includes a plurality of dams for this benefit.
The obvious modification of Cai does not disclose the distance between an adjacent two of the dams to determine if that distance is less than 500 microns.
Fan, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a plurality of “anti-cracking dams” such that the distance between an adjacent two of the dams is less than 500 microns (“an interval space is arranged between two adjacent plane anti-cracking dams 5, and the width of the interval space is about 20-40 micrometers”, fifth paragraph on Page 4 of the attached translation of Fan).
There is a benefit to minimizing space between an adjacent two of the dams in that it reduces the overall size profile of the display device, a recognized benefit in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the two adjacent dams of the obvious modification of Cai such that a distance between the two dams is less than 500 microns as taught by Fan for this benefit.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Qian et al. (US 2021/0226162 A1; hereinafter Qian).
Regarding claim 10, Cai discloses the flexible display panel of claim 1 as discussed above. Cai further discloses that the embodiment shown in Figs. 14 and 18 has a first side surface and a second side surface that are rough surfaces (as seen in Fig. 18 of Cai, the first and second side surfaces are jagged and are, therefore, considered rough).
Cai does not disclose that the top surface of the dam is a rough surface.
Qian, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a dam with a top surface that is a rough surface (Fig. 3 of Qian; “barrier dam 3 comprises an upper surface 301 [which] comprises a groove 30 and a protrusion 31 . . . . the groove 30 and the protrusion 31 allow . . . the upper surface 301 . . . to have a larger roughness”, ¶ 0050 of Qian).
There is a benefit to forming the top surface of the dam to be a rough surface in that it enhances the ability of preventing the encapsulation material from spreading to the edge of the device (“the upper surface . . . comprises the groove 30 and the protrusion 31 . . . so as to achieve a better effect of preventing the liquid organic material from spreading to the edge” (¶ 0055 of Qian), the liquid organic material being the encapsulation material (“a liquid organic material is used to form the organic encapsulation layer”, ¶ 0048 of Qian)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to modify the flexible display panel of Cai to form the top surface of the dam to be a rough surface for this benefit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fig. 10 of Cai does not disclose the newly added limitations to claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations are indefinite and Cai discloses the interpretation given to those limitations for the purpose of this Office action, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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 A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
