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, see Remarks Drawings Page 7, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Claim Rejections-35 USC 112 page 7-8, filed 07/31/2025, with respect to the 25 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 8-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, See Remarks Claim rejections – 35 USC 102 and Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103 pages 8-12, filed 07/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The application first argues that Park does not disclose “a hole area comprises a base substrate and an encapsulation layer, the base substrate is provided with an aperture and provided with a barrier structure on a side of the base substrate close to the aperture, and the encapsulation layer covers the side of the base substrate close to the aperture”. The applicant’s argument appears to rely on “a hole area” is “V” however this is not what the examiner relied upon in office action filed 05/02/2025 non-final rejection. The examiner relied upon and relies upon for this action “a plurality of hole areas (comprising V and overlapping with an end portion of 101 and 102 fig. 1)”, “a hole area (illustrated in fig. 15 but not labeled see annotation below)” and “a hole area is provided with an aperture (V fig. 1)”, the examiner made a clear distinction as annotated in the figures of the office action what is considered the hole area vs the aperture under broadest reasonable interpretation of “the hole area”. As these features are sufficiently illustrated in the figures under broadest reasonable interpretation of “hole area” [an area comprising but not limited to a hole and or aperture] For the sake of clarity the examiner has also annotated fig. 1 and fig. 11 of park with the annotation of the hole area. If the applicant disagrees with the examiners interpretate, the examiner recommends better defining what a “Hole area” entails within the language of the claims as supported by the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15 Park: Highlighting the hole area and aperture, Note; the hole area begins around an approximate lateral center of the top surface of 217
PNG
media_image2.png
440
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 Park: Highlighting the hole area
PNG
media_image3.png
619
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 11 Park: highlighting the hole area, Note; the hole area begins around an approximate lateral center of the top surface of 217
The Applicant secondly argues that Park does not teach “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove, and a thickness of the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove, or the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is discontinuous, or the barrier structure is provided as a barrier eave, the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure with a rigid substrate, a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure, or the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation presents two distinct groupings of alternative members, The first grouping being between “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove” or “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier eave”, the second grouping being between “a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure” or “the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous”. The Applicants argument revolves around the second grouping of alternative members. For the purposes of examination the examiner has already matched the limitation “a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure” to meet the requirements of the grouping of alternative members as no election of species was previously made, thus the limitation “the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous” need not be matched as the claimed alternative has already been matched. The limitation “a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure” is sufficiently illustrated within figure 15 and identified in the annotations within this office action and the previous office action. For clarity when looking at the provided annotation of fig. 15 [see below] it is clear the encapsulation layer 300 as matched by the examiner comprising 330, 320, and 310 that on the top of the device the thickness of element 320 comprises the majority of “a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure”, while within the Barrier groove (R fig. 15) a thickness of element 320 of the encapsulation layer is entirely absent while a thickness of 310 and 330 remain, thus “a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller” under broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner recommend that the applicant further define which precise thickness of the encapsulation layer inside and outside the barrier groove the applicant intends to claim, with the language of the claims.
PNG
media_image4.png
584
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting different thicknesses of the encapsulation layer
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).
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 20200403171 A1 Park et al hereafter “Park”. or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park in further view of US 20200006682 A1 Seo et al hereafter “Seo”.
Claim 1 Park teaches A display substrate, comprising a plurality of pixel areas island (comprising 101 fig. 1, ) separated from one another, a plurality of hole areas (comprising V and overlapping with an end portion of 101 and 102 fig. 1) and a connection bridge area ( comprising 102 fig. 1) connecting the plurality of pixel island areas, wherein a hole area (illustrated in fig. 15 but not labeled see annotation below) comprises a base substrate (comprising 100 fig. 15 but not limited to) and an encapsulation layer (300-330 fig. 15), the base substrate is provided with an aperture (V fig. 1, illustrated fig. 15 not labeled see annotation below) and provided with a barrier structure (the side surface of aperture V adjoining the material layers of the device comprising groove R fig. 15, per MPEP 2112.01 as the side surface of aperture V is material and structurally the same as disclosed) on a side of the base substrate close to the aperture [illustrated fig. 15], and the encapsulation layer covers the side of the base substrate close to the aperture [illustrated fig. 15],
wherein the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove [sufficiently illustrated fig. 15], and a thickness of the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) and illustrated in fig. 15 see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is discontinuous [the examiner is not relying on the embodiment of “discontinuous” within the grouping of alternative members of “discontinuous” or “smaller than a thickness”], or the barrier structure is provided as a barrier eave [This limitation it met under broadest reasonable interpretation, eave includes the general meaning of “a projecting edge” [Merriam-Webster] and fig. 15 depicts a plurality of edges of the barrier structure (side surface of V) project into the aperture (V) including a lower edge and a upper edge of the groove (R) projecting into the aperture and the aperture projects into the groove], the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure (R fig. 15), a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) and illustrated in fig. 15 see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous [the examiner is not relying on the embodiment of “discontinuous” within the grouping of alternative members of “discontinuous” or “smaller than a thickness”].
The examiner notes that the matched limitation “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier eave” is part of a grouping of alternative members as presented in claim 1 and any limitation dependent upon it such as “the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure with a rigid substrate” is not explicitly necessitated because in this case the examiner primarily relies upon the embodiment of “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove” however for the purpose of examining the dependent claims, the limitation has been further matched below.
Park does not teach the groove structure is formed with the rigid substrate.
Seo teaches a display device comprising a barrier structure (the side surface of GR adjoining the material layers illustrated fig. 13) is provided as a barrier eave [illustrated in fig. 13, the side surface of GR forms a plurality of eaves], the barrier eave extends into the aperture (GR fig. 13), the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure [illustrated fig. 13 the side surface of GR comprises grooves corresponding to the eaves] with the rigid substrate (582 fig. 13) [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable the grooved and/or eaved side surface of GR is formed with the ridged substrate as the bottom most layer], a thickness of the encapsulation layer (550 fig. 15) within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure [see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of park such that it includes a rigid substrate as Seo teaches such that “the groove structure is formed with the rigid substrate” to absorb external shocks and prevent the OLED display device from being damaged by the shocks [Paragraph 0237 Seo].
PNG
media_image1.png
586
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15: Highlighting the hole area and aperture
PNG
media_image5.png
645
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Park Annotated fig. 15; highlighting the different thicknesses of the encapsulation layer
PNG
media_image6.png
406
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Seo Annotated fig. 13; highlighting the different thicknesses of the encapsulation layer
Claim 2 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein when the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove [illustrated fig.], a notch of the barrier groove (R fig. 15) faces the aperture.
PNG
media_image4.png
584
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting different thicknesses of the encapsulation layer
Claim 3 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein the hole area further comprises a composite insulation layer (Comprising 213, 214, 215, 217 Fig. 15) provided on the base substrate, the encapsulation layer covers the composite insulation layer [illustrated fig. 15], the composite insulation layer comprises a first end face facing the aperture [illustrated fig. 15 as a left end, see annotation below], the base substrate comprises a first barrier layer (208 fig. 15), a buffer layer (209 fig. 15) and a second barrier layer (219 fig. 15) which are stacked, and the first barrier layer comprises a second end face [illustrated fig. 15 as a left end, see annotation below] facing the aperture, the buffer layer comprises a third end face [illustrated fig. 15 as a left end, see annotation below] facing the aperture, and the second barrier layer comprises a fourth end face [illustrated fig. 15 as a left end, see annotation below] facing the aperture;
in a direction parallel to the base substrate, a distance between the second end face and the first end face is smaller than a distance between the third end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 15, see annotation below], a distance between the fourth end face and the first end face is smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 15, see annotation below], the third end face is provided as a groove (R and/or ICA” fig. 15) bottom of the barrier groove [illustrated fig. 15], and opposite surfaces of the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer are provided as sidewalls of the barrier groove [illustrated fig. 15].
PNG
media_image7.png
265
323
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: Highlighting the end faces and the distance between the First end face and the other end faces.
Claim 7 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 2, wherein in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a width of the barrier groove is smaller than or equal to the thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [illustrated fig. 15, see annotation below].
PNG
media_image8.png
645
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting a width of the barrier groove and a width of the encapsulation layer
Claim 12 Park in view of Seo teaches a display apparatus comprising the display substrate according claim 1 [illustrated fig. 15 and fig. 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation a display substrate is a display apparatus].
Claim 13 Park in view of Seo teaches a method for preparing a display substrate [illustrated fig. 1 and fig. 15], comprising: forming a plurality of pixel island areas (101 fig. 1) separated from each other, a plurality of hole areas (comprising V and overlapping with the edge areas of 101 and 102) and a connection bridge area (102 fig. 1) connecting the plurality of pixel island areas on the base substrate [illustrated fig. 1], the base substrate of a hole area is provided with an aperture (V fig. 1), and a barrier structure (the sides surfaces of V adjoining the material layers of 100 fig. 1) is provided on a side of the base substrate close to the aperture [illustrated fig. 1]; and forming an encapsulation layer (300 fig. 15), wherein the encapsulation layer covers the side of the base substrate close to the aperture [illustrated fig. 15, aperture not labeled but necessarily present see annotation below].
wherein the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove [sufficiently illustrated fig. 15], and a thickness of the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) and illustrated in fig. 15 see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer inside the barrier groove is discontinuous [the examiner is not relying on the embodiment of “discontinuous” within the grouping of alternative members of “discontinuous” or “smaller than a thickness”], or the barrier structure is provided as a barrier eave [This limitation it met under broadest reasonable interpretation, eave includes the general meaning of “a projecting edge” [Merriam-Webster] and fig. 15 depicts a plurality of edges of the barrier structure (side surface of V) project into the aperture (V) including a lower edge and a upper edge of the groove (R) projecting into the aperture and the aperture projects into the groove], the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure (R fig. 15), a thickness of the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) and illustrated in fig. 15 see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous the examiner is not relying on the embodiment of “discontinuous” within the grouping of alternative members of “discontinuous” or “smaller than a thickness”].
The examiner notes that the following matched limitation is part of a grouping alternative members as presented in claim 1 and is not explicitly necessitated in the case the examiner primarily relies upon the embodiment of “the barrier structure is provided as a barrier groove” however for the purpose of examining dependent claims has been further matched below.
Park does not teach the groove structure is formed with the rigid substrate.
Seo teaches a display device comprising a barrier structure (the side surface of GR adjoining the material layers illustrated fig. 13) is provided as a barrier eave [illustrated in fig. 13, the side surface of GR forms a plurality of eaves], the barrier eave extends into the aperture (GR fig. 13), the barrier eave is configured to form a groove structure [illustrated fig. 13 the side surface of GR comprises grooves corresponding to the eaves] with the rigid substrate (582 fig. 13) [this limitation is met under broadest reasonable the grooved and/or eaved side surface of GR is formed with the ridged substrate as the bottom most layer], a thickness of the encapsulation layer (550 fig. 15) within the groove structure is smaller than a thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the groove structure [see annotation below], or the encapsulation layer within the groove structure is discontinuous.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of park such that it includes a rigid substrate as Seo teaches such that “the groove structure is formed with the rigid substrate” to absorb external shocks and prevent the OLED display device from being damaged by the shocks [Paragraph 0237 Seo].
PNG
media_image1.png
586
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15: Highlighting the hole area and aperture
Claim 17 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a width of the barrier groove is smaller than or equal to the thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [this limitation is met see annotation below].
PNG
media_image8.png
645
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting a width of the barrier groove and a width of the encapsulation layer
Claim 4 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 3, wherein the base substrate comprises a first flexible base substrate layer (100 fig. 15) and a second flexible base substrate layer (213 fig. 15), the first flexible base substrate layer is provided on a side of the first barrier layer [bottom side fig. 15] away from the buffer layer, the second flexible base substrate layer is provided on a side of the second barrier layer [top side fig. 15] away from the buffer layer, the first flexible base substrate layer comprises a fifth end face [illustrated fig. 15, see annotation below] facing the aperture, and the second flexible base substrate layer comprises a sixth end face [illustrated fig. 15, see annotation below] face facing the aperture;
Park does not teach in the direction parallel to the base substrate, a distance between the fifth end face and the first end face is larger than the distance between the second end face and the first end face, larger than the distance between the fourth end face and the first end face, and smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face, a distance between the sixth end face and the first end face is larger than the distance between the second end face and the first end face, larger than the distance between the fourth end face and the first end face, and smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face.
Seo teaches in the direction parallel to the base substrate (582 fig. 13), a distance between a fifth end face (end face of 511 fig. 13) and a first end face (end face of 512 fig. 13) is larger than the distance between a second end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below], larger than the distance between a fourth end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below], and smaller than the distance between a third end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below], a distance between a sixth end face and the first end face is larger than the distance between the second end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below], larger than the distance between the fourth end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below], and smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face [illustrated fig. 13 see annotation below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park such that Park teaches “a distance between the fifth end face and the first end face is larger than the distance between the second end face and the first end face, larger than the distance between the fourth end face and the first end face, and smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face, a distance between the sixth end face and the first end face is larger than the distance between the second end face and the first end face, larger than the distance between the fourth end face and the first end face, and smaller than the distance between the third end face and the first end face” as changes in relative size and/or proportions and/or shape are prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.] and/or in order to substantially prevent moisture permeation of the OLED display device [Seo Paragraph 0005].
PNG
media_image9.png
406
574
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Seo Annotated Fig. 13: Highlighting the end faces and their distance from the first end face.
Claim 5 Modified Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 4,
Park in view of Seo does not teach within the embodiment relied upon in fig. 15 the fifth end face is flush with the sixth end face, and the second end face is flush with the fourth end face.
However, Park does teach the fifth end face is flush with the sixth end face, and the second end face is flush with the fourth end face in the embodiment of fig. 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Park such that Park teaches “the fifth end face is flush with the sixth end face, and the second end face is flush with the third end face” as changes in relative size and/or proportions and/or shape are prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.] and/or as a part of routine optimization of the shape of the barrier groove to reduce moisture permeation [as evident by Seo paragraph 0005 regarding the groove reducing moisture permeation].
Claim 8 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein when the barrier structure is provided as the barrier eave [This limitation it met under broadest reasonable interpretation, eave includes the general meaning of “a projecting edge” [Merriam-Webster] and fig. 15 depicts a plurality of edges of the barrier structure (side surface of V) project into the aperture (V) including a lower edge and a upper edge of the groove (R) projecting into the aperture and the aperture projects into the groove], the barrier eave extends into the aperture (illustrated fig. 15),
Claim 9 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 8, wherein the base substrate comprises a buffer layer (comprising 201, 203, 205, 207) and a first barrier layer (208 fig. 15) provided on the buffer layer, the first barrier layer extends into the aperture [illustrated in fig. 15] and forms an eave structure [met under broadest reasonable interpretation wherein eave includes “a projecting edge” and the top left edges of the first barrier layer extends protrudes into the aperture] and.
Park does not teach the first barrier layer protrudes beyond the buffer layer to form the eave structure, the barrier eave comprises a portion of the first barrier layer protruding beyond the buffer layer.
Seo teaches a first barrier layer (512 fig. 13, note 512 is an embodiment of 412) protruding beyond a buffer layer (511 fig. 13, note 511 an embodiment of 411) to form an eave structure [illustrated fig. 13].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape and/or relative proportions of first barrier layer and the buffer layer such that “the first barrier layer protrudes beyond the buffer layer” as Seo teach because changes in relative size and/or shape is prima facie type [See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. and B.] and/or to substantially prevent moisture permeation of OLED display devices [Paragraph 0005 Seo]
Claim 11 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 8, further comprising an organic light emitting layer (222, comprising 222ae and 222ce fig. 15) and a cathode (223 fig. 15), the organic light emitting layer and the cathode of the hole area are partially provided on the barrier eave [illustrated in fig. 15].
Claim 18 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 4, wherein in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a width of the barrier groove is smaller than or equal to the thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [see annotation below].
PNG
media_image8.png
645
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting a width of the barrier groove and a width of the encapsulation layer
Claim 19 Park in view of Seo teaches as shown above the display substrate according to claim 5, wherein in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, a width of the barrier groove is smaller than or equal to the thickness of the encapsulation layer outside the barrier groove [see annotation below].
PNG
media_image8.png
645
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15: highlighting a width of the barrier groove and a width of the encapsulation layer
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and in the alternative Park in view of Seo as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 20120165759 A1 Rogers et al here after “Rogers”.
Claim 6 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 4,
Park in view of Seo does not teach explicitly teach the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Rogers teaches a flexible semiconductor device comprising island with a plurality of layers with individual thicknesses ranging from .2 microns to 2 microns [Sub fig. 19b see MPEP 2131.03].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify islands of Park in view of Seo such that the island layers have a thickness between 0.2 microns to 2 microns as taught by Rogers as changes in size is prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.].
In view of Rogers as shown above modified park sufficiently discloses and embodiment wherein “the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” in Paragraph 0192 “the depths of the recesses R and R′ may be equal to or less than the thickness of the first organic insulating layer 209”.
Claim 14 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 3,
Park in view of Seo does not teach the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Rogers teaches a flexible semiconductor device comprising island with a plurality of layers with individual thicknesses ranging from .2 microns to 2 microns [Sub fig. 19b see MPEP 2131.03].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify islands of Park such that the island layers have a thickness between 0.2 microns to 2 microns as taught by Rogers as changes in size is prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.].
In view of Rogers as shown above modified park sufficiently discloses and embodiment wherein “the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” in Paragraph 0192 “the depths of the recesses R and R′ may be equal to or less than the thickness of the first organic insulating layer 209”.
Claim 10, 15, and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Seo as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Rogers.
Claim 10 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 9,
Park in view of Seo does not explicitly teach a length of the first barrier layer protruding beyond the buffer layer ranges from 0.2 microns to 2 microns, and a thickness of the buffer layer ranges from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Rogers teaches a flexible optoelectronic device with island material layers having a thickness between 0.2 microns and 2 microns (SUB fig. 19b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the material layers such that “a thickness of the buffer layer ranges from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” as Rogers teaches because changes in size are prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.].
In view of Rogers teaching the thickness of the buffer layer and in of Seo teaching the first barrier layer protruding beyond the buffer layer as shown above the limitation “a length of the first barrier layer protruding beyond the buffer layer ranges from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” it is sufficiently disclosed by Seo in Paragraph 0012 “the ratio of the height difference between the ridges and the valleys to the distance between adjacent ones of the ridges may be in a range from about ½ to about 2” [see 2131.03 II.] and/or Park teaches “the depths of the recesses R and R′ may be equal to or less than the thickness of the first organic insulating layer” [see 2131.03 II.]
Claim 15 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 4,
Park in view of Seo does not explicitly teach the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Park does not teach the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Rogers teaches a flexible semiconductor device comprising island with a plurality of layers with individual thicknesses ranging from .2 microns to 2 microns [Sub fig. 19b see MPEP 2131.03].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify islands of Park in view of Seo such that the island layers have a thickness between 0.2 microns to 2 microns as taught by Rogers as changes in size is prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.].
In view of Rogers as shown above modified park sufficiently discloses and embodiment wherein “the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” in Paragraph 0192 “the depths of the recesses R and R′ may be equal to or less than the thickness of the first organic insulating layer 209”.
Claim 16 Park in view of Seo teaches the display substrate according to claim 5,
Park in view of Seo does not explicitly teach the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns.
Rogers teaches a flexible semiconductor device comprising island with a plurality of layers with individual thicknesses ranging from .2 microns to 2 microns [Sub fig. 19b see MPEP 2131.03].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify islands of Park in view of Seo such that the island layers have a thickness between 0.2 microns to 2 microns as taught by Rogers as changes in size is prima facie type obviousness [see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.].
In view of Rogers as shown above modified park sufficiently discloses and embodiment wherein “the barrier groove has a depth ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns and a width ranging from 0.2 microns to 2 microns” in Paragraph 0192 “the depths of the recesses R and R′ may be equal to or less than the thickness of the first organic insulating layer 209”.
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 William C Trice whose telephone number is (703)756-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571) 270-3042. 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.
/WCT/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893