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
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 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.
1. Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2020/0343315; hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin, in fig. 14, discloses a display panel comprising an emission area (130/132/134) and a non- emission area adjacent to the emission area, the display panel comprising: a light emitting element comprising a first electrode 130, an emission layer 132 disposed on the first electrode 130, and a second electrode 134 disposed on the emission layer 132; a pixel defining layer PDS including a first opening defined therein, the first opening exposes at least a portion of the first electrode 130; and a first encapsulation layer 140/150 disposed on the second electrode 134 to overlap the light emitting element, wherein the first encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic layer 140 disposed on the second electrode 134, the first inorganic layer 140 including a first portion overlapping an entirety of the first opening; and a second inorganic layer 150 disposed on the first inorganic layer 140, the second inorganic layer 150 including a first portion directly contacting an entirety of the first portion of the first inorganic layer 140, a top surface of the second electrode 134 overlapping the first opening comprises at least one first stepped portion, and a bottom surface of the second inorganic layer 150 directly contacts a top surface of the first inorganic layer 140, and an entirety of a top surface of the first portion of the second inorganic layer 150 is a flat surface.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses wherein: the first inorganic layer 140 covers the first stepped portion; and the top surface of the first inorganic layer 140 is a flat surface on the emission area (fig. 14)
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses wherein a first height from a bottom surface of the first electrode 130 to the top surface of the first inorganic layer 140 on the emission area is the same as a second height from a bottom surface of the pixel defining layer PDS to the top surface of the first inorganic layer 140 on the non-emission area (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses wherein the top surface of the first inorganic layer 140 comprises a second stepped portion corresponding to the first stepped portion (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses wherein: the second inorganic layer 150 covers the second stepped portion; and the top surface of the second inorganic layer 150 is a flat surface on the emission area (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses wherein an arithmetic mean roughness of the top surface of the first inorganic layer 140 is greater than an arithmetic mean roughness of the top surface of the second inorganic layer 150 ([0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses wherein the first encapsulation layer further comprises a third inorganic layer 210 disposed on the second inorganic layer 150 (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses further comprising: a division partition wall 180 disposed on the first encapsulation layer 140/150 and including a second opening defined therein, the second opening corresponding to the first opening; a light control pattern 170_2 disposed inside the second opening; a second encapsulation layer disposed on the division partition wall 180 to overlap the light control pattern 170; and a color filter 170_2 disposed on the second encapsulation layer to overlap the light control pattern 170_2 ([0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses wherein the second encapsulation layer has a thickness in a range of about 1.0 µm to about 5.0 µm ([0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses wherein the second encapsulation layer comprises: a first encapsulation inorganic layer disposed on the division partition wall; and a second encapsulation inorganic layer disposed on the first encapsulation inorganic layer, wherein a bottom surface of the second encapsulation inorganic layer directly contacts a top surface of the first encapsulation inorganic layer ([0059]).
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claims 2, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2020/0343315) in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0124557; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lin, in fig. 14, discloses a display panel comprising: a light emitting element (130/132/134) comprising a first electrode 130, an emission layer 132 disposed on the first electrode 130, and a second electrode 134 disposed on the emission layer 132; a pixel defining layer PDS including a first opening defined therein, the first opening exposes at least a portion of the first electrode 130; and a first encapsulation layer 140/150 disposed on the second electrode 134 to overlap the light emitting element (130/132/134), wherein the first encapsulation layer comprises: a first inorganic layer 140 disposed on the second electrode 134, the first inorganic layer 140 including a first portion overlapping an entirety of the first opening; and a second inorganic layer 150 disposed on the first inorganic layer 140, the second inorganic layer 150 including a first portion directly contacting an entirety of the first portion of the first inorganic layer 140, and wherein an entirety of a top surface of the first portion of the second inorganic layer 150 is a flat surface.
Lin discloses a semiconductor device as above but fails to disclose the first encapsulation layer has a thickness in a range of about 1.0 µm to about 5.0 µm.
However, Choi, fig. 1A, discloses the thickness of encapsulation layer 50 comprises:
50a (400-600 Å), 50b (3-10 µm), and 50c (400-600 Å) ([0061]).
Although the thickness of the first encapsulation layer is not exactly as claimed (1.0-5.0 µm), this claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688(Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller,105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 14, Choi discloses wherein: the first encapsulation layer further comprises an organic layer 50b disposed between the first inorganic layer 50a and the second inorganic layer 50c; and the organic layer 50b has a thickness in a range of about 3-10 µm (fig. 1A and [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 13 is 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-1798. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 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 attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke H can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/DAVID VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights