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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the adhesive layer being an organic adhesive layer for bonding an encapsulation layer” in lines 14-15 of the claim language. There specification as originally filed is silent about the adhesive layer being organic.
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 1, 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the adhesive layer being an organic adhesive layer for bonding an encapsulation layer” in lines 14-15 of the claim language.
Applicant does not have written support in the originally filed specifications for the adhesive layer being an organic adhesive layer.
Claims 4-7 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) rejected instance claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2016/0204373), Kurata et al (JPWO2007055287, translation attached), and further in view of Choi et al (U.S. 2017/0148856).
Regarding claim 1. Park discloses an organic light-emitting diode panel (FIG. 1, item 1000) for a lighting device (FIG. 4) , the organic light-emitting diode panel (FIG. 1, item 1000) comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120) including an array area (FIG. 1, item PA) having an emission area ([0077]-[0078]), and including a dummy area (FIG. 1, item SA) disposed outside the array area (FIG. 1, item PA);
an auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120);
a first electrode (FIG. 4, item 70, 710) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 4, item 100) where the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177) is disposed;
a passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 190, 191, 192, D3) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120) where the first electrode (FIG. 4, item 710) is disposed, and surrounding (FIG. 4, item D3) on at least four sides ([0040], i.e. the surrounding area SA is provided with at least one dam D1, D2, and D3 to prevent the organic material positioned in the pixel area PA from overflowing to edges of the substrate) the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177) and the first electrode (FIG. 4, item 70) in the dummy area (FIG. 1, item SA);
an organic light-emitting diode emission structure (FIG. 4, item 720) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 4, item 100) where the passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 190) is disposed in the array area (FIG. 4, item PA);
a second electrode (FIG. 4, item 730) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 4, item 100) where the organic light-emitting diode emission structure (FIG. 4, item 720) is disposed;
an adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22 and 23) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120) where the second electrode (FIG. 4, item 730) is disposed and contacting the passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 191, 192) in the dummy area (FIG. 4, item SA), the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22 and 23) (FIG. 4, item 23; [0088]) for bonding ([0100]-[0104]) an encapsulation layer (FIG. 4, item 24) and having a lower surface (FIG. 4, item 22) with a three-dimensional structure (FIG. 4, item 167 and items 190, 191, 192, D3 and item V; claim 6) in the dummy area (FIG. 1, item SA); and
at least one groove (FIG. 4, item V) that penetrates ([Abstract], i.e. an anti-overflowing groove formed in the surrounding area of the substrate; and a dam positioned between the anti-overflowing groove and an end of the substrate) through the passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 191, 192) disposed ([0042], i.e. at least one anti-overflowing groove V is formed between the dams D1, D2, and D3 and the pixel area PA) in the dummy (FIG. 1, item SA) area of the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120),
wherein a part (FIG. 4, item 23) of the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22 and 23) is disposed in the at least one groove (FIG. 4, item V), wherein a side wall of the at least one groove has a step shape (claim 6, i.e. the dam includes a first dam and a second dam positioned at both sides, having the anti-overflowing groove disposed there between.)
the at least one groove (FIG. 4, item V) having a depth sufficient ([0012]) to at least partially expose ([0012]) an upper surface (FIG. 1 and 4, item 120) of the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120) beneath the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177),
and wherein the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22) directly contacts with all of the passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 191, 192), the first electrode (FIG. 4, item 70), the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75) disposed in the dummy area (FIG. 1, item SA) of the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, item 100) and the upper surface (FIG. 1 and 4, item 120) of the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120).
and wherein the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22) contacts the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75).
wherein the organic adhesive layer has a three-dimensional structure in the dummy area such that a moisture intrusion path along a boundary between the passivation pattern and the organic adhesive layer is increased ([0092], i.e. An uppermost layer exposed to the outside in the encapsulation layer may be the organic layer to prevent moisture from being permeated into the OLED).
Park fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive layer as a whole is organic
wherein each of the at least one groove further penetrates through the auxiliary wiring pattern disposed in the dummy area,
and wherein the adhesive layer directly contacts the auxiliary wiring pattern
However, Kurata et al (WO2007055287) wherein the adhesive layer (FIG. 6, item 16) as a whole is organic (FIG. 6, item 16, [0019]).
Kurata et al further discloses an embodiment (FIG. 1) that the adhesive layer is inorganic (FIG. 1, item 13, [0019]) and an embodiment (FIG. 2) where the adhesive layer is organic (FIG. 2, item 16; [0019]) and inorganic (FIG. 2, item 13; [0019]).
Since Park et al and Kurata et al teach adhesive layers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the organic light-emitting diode panel as disclosed to modify wherein the adhesive layer as a whole must be organic with the teachings of the organic adhesive layer 16 as shown in FIG. 6 as disclosed by Kurata et al. The use of organic adhesive layer in Kurata et al provides for organic adhesive layer has a function of compensating for the level difference caused by the color finer layer in addition to the function of improving the adhesion of the color conversion layer, and in addition, considering that light from the organic EL element is radiated to the outside through the organic adhesive layer, the material of the organic adhesive layer has excellent light transmittance (wavelength 400 to 800 nm) (Kurata et al, [0021]).
Park and Kurata et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one groove further penetrates through the auxiliary wiring pattern disposed in the dummy area,
and wherein the adhesive layer directly contacts the auxiliary wiring pattern
However, Choi et al teaches wherein each of the at least one groove (FIG. 4G, Item RC; [0075], [0095]) further through the first electrode (FIG. 4G, item 230) penetrates ([0074], A stepped portion 400 is located in the third area A3) through the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4D and 4G, item 410) disposed in the dummy area (FIG. 4G, item A3),
and wherein the adhesive layer (FIG. 4G, item 310) directly (FIG. 4 shows item 310 directly contacts item 410) contacts the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4D and 4G, item 410).
Since Park, Kurata et al, and Choi et al teach adhesive layers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the organic light-emitting diode panel as disclosed to modify Park and Kurata et al with the teachings of wherein each of the at least one groove further penetrates through the auxiliary wiring pattern disposed in the dummy area and wherein the adhesive layer directly contacts the auxiliary wiring pattern as disclosed by Choi et al. The use of a stepped portion is located in the third area in Choi et al provides for blocking the path via which external moisture permeates (Choi et al, [0074]).
Regarding claim 4. Park, Kurata et al and Choi et al discloses all the limitations of the organic light-emitting diode panel for the lighting device of claim 1 above.
Park further discloses wherein a capping layer (FIG. 4, item 21) is on the second electrode (FIG. 4, item 710).
Regarding claim 5. Park, Kurata et al and Choi et al discloses all the limitations of the organic light-emitting diode panel for the lighting device of claim 1 above.
Park further discloses wherein the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177) is a material having resistance lower ([0059], i.e. The source electrodes 73 and 176 and the drain electrodes 75 and 177 may be formed of a single layer or plural layers including low resistance materials such as Al, Ti, Mo, Cu) than a resistance of a material ([0083], i.e. the first electrode 710 and the second electrode 730 are formed of a transparent layer; [0085], i.e. The transparent layer is made of materials such as indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), zinc oxide (ZnO), and indium oxide (In.sub.2O.sub.3)) of the first electrode (FIG. 4, item 710).
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.") MPEP 2112.01 II
Regarding claim 6. Park, Kurata et al and Choi et al discloses all the limitations of the organic light-emitting diode panel for the lighting device of claim 1 above.
Park further discloses wherein the passivation pattern (FIG. 4, item 190, 191, 192, D3) is at least in an area (FIG. 4, item 190, 91 and item 68, 73, 75) where the auxiliary wiring pattern (FIG. 4, item 68, 73, 75, 176, 177) is disposed.
Regarding claim 7. Park, Kurata et al, and Choi et al discloses all the limitations of the organic light-emitting diode panel for the lighting device of claim 1 above.
Park further discloses further comprising an encapsulation layer (FIG. 4, item 24) disposed on the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejection of claim 1.
On page 6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Park nor Choi do not teach or suggest the adhesive layer is an organic layer for bonding an encapsulation layer and wherein the organic adhesive layer has a three-dimensional structure in the dummy area such that a moisture intrusion path along a boundary between the passivation pattern and the organic adhesive layer is increased.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion and that Park discloses applicant’s amended claim limitations.
Examiner respectfully further points out that applicant does not have support for applicant’s amended claim limitation.
Examiner respectfully points out that Kurata et al teaches an entire organic adhesive layer.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 7 of applicant remarks, applicant appears to argue that Park does not teach or suggest a combination of a groove and an adhesive layer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant assertion. Examiner respectfully points out that Park, Kurata and Choi disclose the combination of a groove and an adhesive layer.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Choi does not teach or disclose an adhesive layer extends into a groove to form a three dimensional boundary.
Examiner respectfully points out Park discloses an adhesive layer extends into a groove to form a three dimensional boundary. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights