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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2025 has been entered.
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, 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the groove" in the second to last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination and compact prosecution, examiner shall interpret “the grove” to be “the at least one grove”.
Claims 4-7 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) 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), 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) 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), a lower surface of the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22) having a three-dimensional structure 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 of the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22) 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.)
wherein each of the at least one groove (FIG. 4, item V) further penetrates through the first electrode (FIG. 4, item 70) disposed in the dummy area (FIG. 1 and 4, item SA) of the substrate (FIG. 1 and 4, items 100 and 120),
the 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).
Park 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]) 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 and Choi et al teach dummy area, 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 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 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 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 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 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 23) disposed on the adhesive layer (FIG. 4, item 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejection of claim 1.
On page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Park, Kim nor Choi do not teach or suggest forming the groove so that the upper surface of the substrate is at least partially exposed.
Examiner respectfully points out Park et al discloses the groove so that the upper surface of the substrate is at least partially exposed.
Furthermore, an page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Park, Kim nor Choi because an adhesive layer, as recited in the present application, is structurally and functionally distinct from inorganic passivation or encapsulation films. In particular, the claimed adhesive layer provides mechanical bonding capability between the OLED panel and a cover or encapsulation substrate.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an adhesive layer, as recited in the present application, is structurally and functionally distinct from inorganic passivation or encapsulation films. In particular, the claimed adhesive layer provides mechanical bonding capability between the OLED panel and a cover or encapsulation substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner respectfully points out that applicant has not claimed any specific materials for the adhesive layer that does not read upon the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815