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 .
Election/Restriction
The applicant elected invention I on November 6, 2025, and nonelected claims 13-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on October 5, 2022 and August 14, 2025 have been considered.
Foreign Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority from KR10-2021-0183945 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: DISPLAY WITH DRIVE CIRCUIT OVERLAPPING PERIPHERAL AREA
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 1-20 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 recites “a pattern portion disposed on the driving circuit”. This claim term cannot be sufficiently understood. It does not have an art specific meaning. It does not have a clear plain meaning. A portion of a pattern? A portion that is patterned? Something else? The recitation does not identify structure or material of the element. The meaning cannot be determined without importing impermissible details from the specification.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, US 2022/0028938 A1, in view of Jeon, US 2021/0265436 A1.
Claim 1: Zhao discloses
a substrate including a first display area (aa1), a peripheral area (bb1), and a second display area (aa2) disposed between the first display area and the peripheral area;
a first light-emitting device (111) disposed on the first display area of the substrate;
a second light-emitting device (112) disposed on the second display area of the substrate;
a driving circuit (121,122) disposed on the second display area and the peripheral area of the substrate and overlapping the second light-emitting device in a plan view;
a pattern portion (014) disposed on the driving circuit;
Zhao does not disclose the claimed dam portion. However, such dams were well-known in the art. See Jeon FIG. 4, dam 110, which would be outside pattern the portion of Zhao. It would have been obvious to have a dam to block outward flow of organic material ([0066]).
Claims 2-12 and 17-20 would potentially distinguish over the prior art, depending on how the claim language is amended to address the 112 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights