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 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7. 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20170135587) of record, in view of Codama (U.S. Patent No. 6,037,712).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses an organic light-emitting display device comprising: a substrate (100) including a display area (AA) in which a plurality of pixels are disposed and a non-display area (NA) surrounding the display area; a dam pattern (between 710) surrounding the display area and positioned in the non-display area; a first barrier pattern (800 within right P1) positioned in a first barrier area (right P1) between the dam pattern and the display area; a second barrier pattern (800 within left P1) positioned in a second barrier area (left P1) outside the dam pattern; an organic light-emitting element layer (500) positioned in the display area and the non-display area; and an encapsulation portion (900) covering the display area and the non-display area, wherein the organic light-emitting element layer in the non-display area comprises: an organic light-emitting layer (521, FIG. 2a) disposed on a first electrode and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; and a second electrode (531) enclosing both sidewalls and an upper surface of each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer, and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode.
Lee is silent with respect to “each of the first and the second barrier pattern is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode”.
FIG. 1 of Codama discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, comprising an organic light-emitting layer (6) disposed on a first electrode (2) and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; a second electrode (7) on each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer, and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; and each of the first and the second barrier pattern (9) is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Codama. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving reliability (Col. 2 Lines 42-50 of Codama).
Regarding Claim 3
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses a vertical dimension of each of two opposing sidewalls of each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern is equal to or larger than a vertical dimension of a sidewall of each of the discontinuous portions of the second electrode that encloses a respective one of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer.
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern includes a plurality of patterns.
Regarding Claim 9
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses a large-screen display device comprising: a plurality of organic light-emitting display devices arranged along a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction so as to contact each other, wherein each of the organic light-emitting display devices includes: a substrate (100) including a display area (AA) in which a plurality of pixels are disposed, and a non-display area (NA) surrounding the display area and having a bezel area; a dam pattern (between 710) surrounding the display area and positioned in the non-display area; a first barrier pattern (800 within right P1) positioned in a first barrier area (right P1) between the dam pattern and the display area; a second barrier pattern (800 within left P1) positioned in a second barrier area (left P1) outside the dam pattern; an organic light-emitting element layer (500) positioned in a pixel area, the first barrier area, and the second barrier area; and an encapsulation portion (900) covering the display area, the organic light-emitting element layer, the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern, wherein the organic light-emitting element layer is divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other via each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern, wherein the organic light-emitting element layer includes a first electrode (510), an organic light-emitting layer (520) disposed on the first electrode, and a second electrode (531) enclosing both sidewalls and an upper surface of each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode, wherein, in the non-display area, each of the organic light-emitting layer and the second electrode is divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other via each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern, wherein adjacent substrates of the plurality of organic light-emitting display devices are in contact with each other.
Lee is silent with respect to each of the first and the second barrier pattern is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode”.
Lee is silent with respect to “each of the first and the second barrier pattern is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode”.
FIG. 1 of Codama discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, comprising an organic light-emitting layer (6) disposed on a first electrode (2) and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; a second electrode (7) on each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer, and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; and each of the first and the second barrier pattern (9) is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Codama. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving reliability (Col. 2 Lines 42-50 of Codama).
Regarding Claim 10
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses a vertical dimension of each of the both opposing sidewalls of each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern is equal to or larger than a vertical dimension of a sidewall of the second electrode surrounding the face of each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer between the adjacent ones.
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses each of the discontinuous portions of the second electrode (530) encloses a respective one of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer (520) spaced from each other via each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern.
Regarding Claim 16
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses a vertical dimension of each of two opposing sidewalls of each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern is equal to or larger than a vertical dimension of a sidewall of the each of the discontinuous portions of the second electrode that encloses the respective one of the organic light-emitting layer.
Regarding Claim 17
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses an organic light-emitting display device comprising: one or more barrier patterns disposed on a bezel area (NA); and an organic light-emitting element layer on the bezel area, wherein the organic light-emitting element layer comprises: an organic light-emitting layer (520) disposed on a first electrode (510) and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; and a second electrode (530) enclosing both sidewalls and an upper surface of each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer (521, FIG. 2a), and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other, wherein each of the one or more barrier patterns (800 within P1) is disposed between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode.
Lee is silent with respect to “each of the one or more barrier patterns is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode”.
FIG. 1 of Codama discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, comprising an organic light-emitting layer (6) disposed on a first electrode (2) and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; a second electrode (7) on each of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer, and divided into discontinuous portions spaced from each other; and each of the one or more barrier patterns (9) is disposed on the first electrode between adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode, wherein each of the first and the second barrier pattern covers opposing sidewalls of adjacent discontinuous portions of the second electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Codama. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving reliability (Col. 2 Lines 42-50 of Codama).
Regarding Claim 20
FIG. 1 of Lee discloses a vertical dimension of each of two opposing sidewalls of the barrier pattern is equal to or larger than a vertical dimension of a sidewall of each of the discontinuous portions of the second electrode that encloses a respective one of the discontinuous portions of the organic light-emitting layer.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Zhou (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0257588) of record
Regarding Claim 4
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 1.
Lee modified by Codama is silent with respect to “the second barrier area is positioned between an outer side edge of the substrate and the dam pattern, and wherein the first barrier area has a width smaller than a width of the second barrier area”.
FIG. 1 of Zhou discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, the second barrier area (right 14) is positioned between an outer side edge of the substrate and the dam pattern, and wherein the first barrier area (141) has a width smaller than a width of the second barrier area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Zhou. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of avoiding corrosion and improving packaging effect ([0009] of Zhou).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Fujisawa (JP 2012098640) of record.
Regarding Claim 5
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 1.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure so as to achieve orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine (F) at a functional group thereof”.
However, Fujisawa discloses a polymer material containing a substantial amount of fluorine has high barrier properties against oxygen, water, vapor, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Fujisawa, such that each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure so as to achieve orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine (F) at a functional group thereof. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving structural durability and display durability (Abstract of Fujisawa).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Long (WO 2020094015) of record.
Regarding Claim 6
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 1.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “the first barrier pattern has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the display area in a plan view of the device, and wherein the second barrier pattern is positioned outside the dam pattern and has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the dam pattern in the plan view”.
FIG. 6 of Long discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, wherein the first barrier pattern (81) has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the display area in a plan view of the device, and wherein the second barrier pattern is positioned outside the dam pattern and has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the dam pattern in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Long. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving blocking effect (Text of Long).
Claim 8, 15 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Wang (CN 112310320) of record.
Regarding Claim 8
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 1, wherein the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern are separated from each other.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern has both opposing sidewalls and a bottom portion which are integrally formed such that a cross-sectional shape thereof is a 'U' shape having a valley”.
FIG. 4 of Wang discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, wherein each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern (20) has both opposing sidewalls and a bottom portion which are integrally formed such that a cross-sectional shape thereof is a 'U' shape having a valley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Wang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of preventing water vapor or oxygen from being transmitted to the driving area and the pixel area (Abstract of Wang).
Regarding Claim 15
FIG. 4 of Wang discloses each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern (20) has both opposing sidewalls and a bottom portion which are integrally formed such that a cross-sectional shape thereof is a 'U' shape having a valley. FIG. 1 of Lee discloses the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern are separated from each other.
Regarding Claim 19
FIG. 4 of Wang discloses each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern (20) has both opposing sidewalls and a bottom portion such that a cross-sectional shape thereof is a 'U' shape having a valley.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Fujisawa (JP 2012098640) of record.
Regarding Claim 13
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 9.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure that achieves orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine (F) at a functional group thereof”.
However, Fujisawa discloses a polymer material containing a substantial amount of fluorine has high barrier properties against oxygen, water, vapor, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Fujisawa, such that each of the first barrier pattern and the second barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure that achieves orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine (F) at a functional group thereof. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving structural durability and display durability (Abstract of Fujisawa).
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Long (WO 2020094015) of record.
Regarding Claim 14
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 9.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “the first barrier pattern has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the display area in a plan view, and wherein the second barrier pattern is positioned outside the dam pattern and has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the dam pattern in the plan view”.
FIG. 6 of Long discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, wherein the first barrier pattern (81) has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the display area in a plan view, and wherein the second barrier pattern is positioned outside the dam pattern and has a frame shape surrounding four sides of the dam pattern in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Long. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving blocking effect (Text of Long).
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Codama, in view of Xue (CN 110416266) of record.
Regarding Claim 18
Lee as modified by Codama discloses Claim 17.
Lee as modified by Codama is silent with respect to “the barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure that achieves orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine at a functional group thereof”.
Xue discloses a similar organic light-emitting display device, wherein the barrier pattern includes a polymer material in which carbon-carbon bonds are continuously arranged in a chain structure that achieves orthogonality, and wherein the polymer material contains a substantial amount of fluorine (F) at a functional group thereof (text: the barrier piece 80 comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of polymethyl methacrylate and polystyrene, polymer based on phenol group and derivative, polymer based on acrylic, polymer based on paraxylene, polymer based on aromatic ether, polymer based on amide, polymer based on fluoride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee, as taught by Xue. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the above manner for purpose of improving blocking effect (Text of Xue).
Pertinent Art
Pertinent art includes Ding (CN 110265583), Sui (CN 110544714), Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0006264), Kim (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0176520), Wang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0273307), Lee (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20130112962), Shitagami (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0189878), Park (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0235180), Lu (U.S. Patent No. 6,630,785), Nagayama (U.S. Patent No. 5,701,055) and Oh (KR 100647339).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights