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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 9 June 2026 of Applicants’ amendment in which claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US20180210245A1) in view of Li et al. (US20200067000A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches in Figs. 1, 5, and 6 a display device, comprising:
a first substrate (1) including an active area (D) and a non-active area adjacent (periphery outside D) the active area (D) {[0041]};
a first electrode (5, F1) and a second electrode (5, F2) in the non-active area of the first substrate and spaced apart from each other {[0041, 0065]};
a plurality of structures (4) disposed on the first substrate and between the first electrode and the second electrode, a space (space of 3) being between each of the plurality of structures (4) {[0044]}; and
a connection layer (layer of 6) on an upper side of the space (space of 3) and upper surfaces of the plurality of structures (4) and electrically connecting the first electrode and the second electrode {[0044]},
wherein a portion of a lower surface of the connection layer (layer of 6) is exposed to the space (space of 3) between the plurality of structures (4) {[0044]},
wherein the first electrode (5, F1) and the second electrode (5, F2) protrude to outside of the display device {[[0065]; two of the first conductive portions extending into the bonding region can be used for resistance test}, and
wherein the upper side of the space and the upper surfaces of the plurality of structures (4) are substantially at a same level, and
wherein the connection layer (layer of 6) extends from the upper surfaces of the plurality of structures in a lateral direction and covers the space (space of 3).
Yao does not teach a plurality of light emitting diodes in the active area of the first substrate.
In an analogous art, Li teaches in Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0039] a plurality of light emitting diodes (e.g., pixel units) in an active area (21) of a first substrate (24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device based on the teachings of Li – such that a plurality of light emitting diodes are disposed in the active area of the first substrate – for displaying a picture. Li ¶0039.
Regarding claim 2, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Yao further teaches wherein the plurality of structures (4) includes:
one pair of first structures (pair of 4) overlapping the first electrode (5,F1) and the second electrode (5,F2), respectively; and
a plurality of second structures (4 between [5, F1], [5, F2]) between the one pair of first structures and spaced apart from each other {Figs. 1, 5, 6; [0044]}.
Regarding claim 3, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 2, but Yao does not teach wherein a cross section of the one pair of first structures is configured to have a trapezoidal structure and a cross section of the plurality of second structures is configured to have an inverted trapezoidal structure.
However, a change of shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Yao further teaches wherein portions (portion of layer 6 between adjacent 4s) of the connection layer (layer of 6) are a continuous structure {Fig. 6}.
Regarding claim 9, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Yao further teaches further comprising:
a second substrate (2) covering the first substrate (1) {Figs. 5, 6; [0041]}; and
a sealing member (3) bonding the first substrate (1) to the second substrate (2) {Figs. 5, 6; [0041]},
wherein the first electrode (5, F1) and the second electrode (5, F2) protrude from an area overlapping the second substrate (2) to outside of the second substrate and the sealing member (3) (Fig. 1; [0065]}.
Regarding claim 11, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 9, and Yao further teaches wherein the plurality of structures (4) are disposed inside the sealing member (3) {Fig. 5; [0044]}.
Regarding claim 16, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Yao further teach wherein a first end and a second end of the connection layer (layer of 6) are in contact with the first electrode (5, F1) and the second electrode (5, F2), respectively {Fig. 1; [0044]}.
Regarding claim 17, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Yao does not expressly teach wherein a distance between the plurality of structures is 0.05 to 0.15 times a height of the plurality of structures.
However, the second paragraph of page 13 of the instant application identifies the criticality of the claimed range as follows. “When the distance between a plurality of structures 117 and 118 is smaller than 0.05 times a height of a plurality of structures 117 and 118, a sufficient process margin for forming a plurality of structures 117 and 118 may not be ensured. When the distance between a plurality of structures 117 and 118 is larger than 0.15 times the height of a plurality of structures 117 and 118, the connection layer 164 which is deposited on a plurality of structures 117 and 118 may be broken.” But, neither the claim nor the application identifies either a range or a specific value of height for the plurality of structures in which the recited range exhibits criticality. And one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identified criticality of the recited range would not exist for all heights of the plurality of structures (e.g., heights of 1x10-20 meters or 1x104 meters). Accordingly, because neither the claim nor the application identifies either: (1) a range of heights in which the criticality of the claimed range necessarily exists or (2) any specific height for the plurality of structures, the application lacks a sufficient disclosure for identifying a range in which the specified criticality exists. Thus, no criticality of the claimed range exists under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Yao teaches in Figs. 1, 5, and 6 a connection layer (layer of 6) that is both deposited on a plurality of separated structures (4) and not broken. Accordingly, Yao’s device as modified by Li does not perform differently (i.e., the connection layer is unbroken and the plurality of structures are separated from one another) from the claimed device. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims [i]s a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [i]s not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi (US20220238612A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Li further teaches the first electrode (5, F1) and the second electrode (5, F2) are the same material {Yao identifies both electrodes (5) with the same reference character; thus, both are identical)}.
Yao does not teach further comprising:
a plurality of transistors in the active area and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes; and
a protective layer overlapping the plurality of transistors and under the plurality of transistors,
wherein the protective layer is the same material as first electrode and the second electrode.
In an analogous art, Shi teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0087] a plurality of transistors (101) in the active area (100) and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes (303) and a protective layer (12) overlapping the plurality of transistors (101) and under the plurality of transistors (101), wherein the protective layer (12) is aluminum/molybdenum, which is the same material as Li’s first and second electrodes {¶0110, first metal thin film is patterned through a patterning process to form a light shielding layer 12; ¶0120, first metal thin film … may be made of … any one or more of … aluminum (Al) … and molybdenum (Mo)}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li based on the teachings of Shi – such that a plurality of transistors are disposed in the active area and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes; and a protective layer overlaps the plurality of transistors and is under the plurality of transistors, wherein the protective layer is aluminum/molybdenum (which is the same material as Li’s first and second electrodes) – for shield[ing] external charges to protect the transistors in the drive structure layer. Shi ¶0087.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US20190097162A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Yao does not teach wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes includes an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, the display device further comprising:
a bank covering a part of the anode and disposed under the light emitting layer,
wherein at least one of the plurality of structures and the bank are the same material, and
wherein the connection layer and the cathode are the same material.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches in Figs. 1, 2, and 3/4:
the plurality of light emitting diodes includes an anode (21), a light emitting layer (22), and a cathode (23) {¶0064}, the display device further comprising:
a bank (7) covering a part of the anode (21) and disposed under the light emitting layer (22) {¶0064},
wherein at least one of the plurality of structures (6) and the bank (7) are the same material {¶0064; An edge portion of the pixel defining layer 7 on the planarization layer 11 away from the display region forms an annular barrier dam 6}, and
wherein the connection layer (31) and the cathode (23) are the same material {¶0076}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li based on the teachings of Wang – such that the plurality of light emitting diodes includes an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, the display device further comprising: a bank covering a part of the anode and disposed under the light emitting layer, wherein at least one of the plurality of structures and the bank are the same material, and wherein the connection layer and the cathode are the same material – to provide the electrical signals required for light emitting diodes and to simplify the overall preparation process of the display panel by reducing the manufacturing materials and operations. Wang ¶0076.
Regarding claim 12, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li does not teach necessarily further comprising an encapsulation structure, wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, the connection layer and the plurality of light emitting diodes are encapsulated between the encapsulation structure and the substrate.
Wang teaches in Figs. 1, 2, and 3/4 and paragraph [0069]:
an encapsulation structure (8),
wherein the first electrode (leftmost 4), the second electrode (rightmost 4), the connection layer (31, 32) and the plurality of light emitting diodes (21-23) are encapsulated between the encapsulation structure (8) and the substrate (1) {Wang’s Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate electrodes (4) overlapping portions of (3:{31,32}), which portions are encapsulated by (8)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li based on the teachings of Wang – such that the display device further comprises an encapsulation structure, wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, the connection layer and the plurality of light emitting diodes are encapsulated between the encapsulation structure and the substrate – to have an effect of isolating water and oxygen, and both cover the display region and extend to the outside of the display region to cover the annular barrier dam … and the monitoring ring. Wang ¶0069.
Regarding claim 13, Yao as modified by Li and Wang teaches the display device according to claim 12, but Li does not teach wherein the encapsulation structure has a structure in which an inorganic layer and an organic layer are alternately laminated.
Wang teaches in Figs. 1, 2, and 3/4 and paragraph [0069] the encapsulation structure (8) has a structure in which an inorganic layer (81, 83) and an organic layer (82) are alternately laminated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li and Wang based on the further teachings of Wang – such that the encapsulation structure has a structure in which an inorganic layer and an organic layer are alternately laminated – to have an effect of isolating water and oxygen and provide a connecting wrap layer. Wang ¶0069.
Regarding claim 15, Yao as modified by Li and Wang teaches the display device according to claim 7, but Yao does not teach wherein the plurality of structures and the bank are each formed of the same material and by the same process.
Wang teaches in Figs. 1, 2, and 3/4 and paragraph [0064] the at least one of the plurality of structures (6) and the bank (7) are each formed of the same material and by the same process {¶0064; An edge portion of the pixel defining layer 7 on the planarization layer 11 away from the display region forms an annular barrier dam 6}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li and Wang based on the further teachings of Wang – such that the at least one of the plurality of structures (6) and the bank (7) are each formed of the same material and by the same process – to simplify the overall preparation process of the display panel by reducing the manufacturing materials and operations. Wang ¶0076.
Yao’s display device as modified by Li and Wang does not teach that all of the plurality of structures are formed of the same material. However, as discussed immediately above, Wang teaches the one structure is formed of the same material as a bank. But mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). Moreover, Li discloses in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0046] a plurality of structures (groups of 302-304) formed of the same material and by the same process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li and Wang based on the further teachings of Wang and Li – such that all of Yao’s plurality of structures are formed of the material taught by Wang for one such structure – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Examiner’s Note: Although Wang teaches the limitation of “the same process,” this recitation is a product by process feature that does not further limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim(s) 10, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Li as applied to claim 9 (for claims 10 and 14) and claim 1 (for claim 19) above, and further in view of Ren et al. (US20190189951A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 9, but Yao does not necessarily teach wherein the connection layer is disposed inside the sealing member.
Ren teaches in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057] a connection layer (230) is disposed inside a sealing member (220). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified by Li based on the teachings of Ren – such that the connection layer is disposed inside the sealing member – so the moisture detection portion … is dry. Ren ¶0057.
Regarding claim 14, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 9, but Yao does not necessarily teach:
a portion of the first electrode disposed inside of the sealing member overlaps both the first substrate and the second substrate, and another portion of the first electrode disposed outside of the sealing member overlaps the second substrate, among the first substrate and the second substrate, and
wherein a portion of the second electrode disposed inside of the sealing member overlaps both the first substrate and the second substrate, and another portion of the second electrode disposed outside of the sealing member overlaps the second substrate, among the first substrate and the second substrate.
Ren teaches in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057] a portion of a first electrode (240) disposed inside of a sealing member (220) overlaps both a first substrate (210-1) and a second substrate (210-2), and another portion of the first electrode (240) disposed outside of the sealing member (220) overlaps the second substrate (210-2), among the first substrate (210-1) and the second substrate (210-2), and wherein a portion of a second electrode (250) disposed inside of the sealing member (220) overlaps both the first substrate (210-1) and the second substrate (210-2), and another portion of the second electrode (250) disposed outside of the sealing member (220) overlaps the second substrate (210-2), among the first substrate (210-1) and the second substrate (210-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified Li based on the teachings of Ren to achieve the above-identified features so a moisture detection device may be connected to the electrodes for making a moisture measurement without breaking the moisture seal provided by a sealing member between the first and second substrates. See, e.g., Ren ¶0057.
Regarding claim 19, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Yao does not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the connection layer is 0.1 to 0.2 times the height of the plurality of structures, and wherein the thickness of the connection layer is a thickness of a thickest area of the connection layer.
However, the penultimate paragraph of page 13 of the instant application identifies the criticality of the claimed range as follows. “When the thickness of the connection layer 164 is smaller than 0.1 times the height of a plurality of structures 117 and 118, the connection layer 164 which is deposited on a plurality of structures 117 and 118 may be broken. That is, the connection layer 164 grows to be thin in the thickness direction so that the growth in the lateral direction may not be sufficiently performed. When the thickness of the connection layer 164 is larger than 0.2 times the height of a plurality of structures 117 and 118, the accuracy of detecting the moisture permeation may be lowered. That is, even though the connection layer 164 reacts with the moisture or oxygen, the resistance change is insignificant so that the detection accuracy may be lowered.” But, neither the claim nor the application identifies either a range or a specific value of height for the plurality of structures in which the recited range exhibits criticality. And one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identified criticality of the recited range would not exist for all heights of the plurality of structures (e.g., heights of 1x10-20 meters or 1x104 meters). Accordingly, because neither the claim nor the application identifies either: (1) a range of heights in which the criticality of the claimed range necessarily exists or (2) any specific height for the plurality of structures, the application lacks a sufficient disclosure for identifying a range in which the specified criticality exists. Thus, no criticality of the claimed range exists under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Ren teaches in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057] a connection layer (230) having both: (1) sufficient growth in a lateral direction and (2) an ability to detect moisture permeation accurately. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified Li based on the teachings of Ren – such that Yao’s modified display device has characteristics of Ren’s connection layer – for the purpose of determin[ing] that a portion of the sealant of the package structure 200 at a detection position has a defect. Ren ¶0058. Accordingly, Li’s device as modified by Kim and Ren does not perform differently (i.e., the connection layer has sufficient lateral growth and accurately detects moisture permeation based on resistivity) from the claimed device. [W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims [i]s a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [i]s not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa (US20200235175A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yao as modified by Li teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Yao does not expressly teach wherein a step coverage of a deposition material of the connection layer is 30% or higher.
In an analogous art, Hasegawa teaches in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0056] a connection layer made of ITO or IZO, which is the same material of the connection layer disclosed in the second paragraph of page 12 of the instant application. Because the connection layer materials are identical, their step coverage properties are identical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yao’s display device as modified Li based on the teachings of Hasegawa – such that Li’s connection layer is made of ITO or IZO – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the recited subject matter of “a thickness of a first portion of the connection layer corresponding to the space between the plurality of structures is smaller than a thickness of a second portion of the connection layer which is in contact with the plurality of structures” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the recited subject matter of “at least one of the plurality of structures and the planarization layer are the same material” in combination with the other limitations of the claim, because the primary reference, Yao, teaches the plurality of structures are conductors that are necessary to complete an electrical circuit, whereas a planarization layer is not a conductor.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US20200209177A1) teaches a display apparatus includes: a first substrate including a display area and a peripheral area; a second substrate overlapping the first substrate; a sealing unit surrounding the display area and disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; and a first resistance measuring pattern located at an upper surface of the sealing unit, and a second resistance measuring pattern located at a lower surface of the sealing unit, wherein each of the first and second resistance measuring patterns extends along edges of the first substrate and has a rectangular shape including an open side. But Kim does not teach the above-identified features of claims 5 and 8.
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights