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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 November 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 24 September 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 23 December 2025 of Applicants’ amendment in which claim 1 is amended. The Office withdraws the section 112(a) rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 24 September 2025 in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 7, filed 24 September 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 over the combined teachings of Li, Kim, and Ma has been withdrawn.
However, claim 1 is newly rejected over the combined teachings of Li and Kim. In their arguments, Applicants’ submit an allegation of patentability without a identifying a specific basis for distinguishing a claim from the prior art. Additionally, Applicants argue an agreement was reached in an interview conducted on 18 December 2025 that amended claim 1 is allowable over the art applied in the rejection of 24 September 2025; no such agreement was reached. Instead, the examiner stated the proposed amendment claim likely overcomes the basis (e.g., rationale) of the rejection pending at the time of the interview.
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) 1-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20200067000A1) in view of Kim (US20200209177A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Li teaches in Fig. 6 a display device, comprising:
a first substrate (301) including an active area (31) and a non-active area (33) adjacent the active area (31) {¶0046};
a first electrode (P1) and a second electrode (P3) in the non-active area (33) of the first substrate (301) and spaced apart from each other {¶0049};
a plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) disposed on the first substrate (301) and between the first electrode (P1) and the second electrode (P3), a space (see annotated Fig. 6 below) being between each of the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) {¶0046};
a connection layer (307) on an upper side of the space and upper surfaces of the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) and electrically connecting the first electrode (P1) and the second electrode (P3) {¶0046},
wherein a portion of a lower surface of the connection layer (307) is exposed to the space between the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) {Fig. 6}, and
wherein the upper side of the space and the upper surfaces of the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) are substantially at a same level {see annotated copy of Li’s Fig. 6}.
Li does not expressly teach in a single embodiment a plurality of light emitting diodes in the active area of the first substrate.
However, 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 Li’s display device based on the further 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.
Li does not expressly teach wherein the first electrode and the second electrode protrude to outside of the display device.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph [0061] a first electrode (43a, 83) and a second electrode (43b, 84) protrude to outside of a display device (region disposed between 100 and 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device based on the teachings of Kim – such that the first electrode and the second electrode protrude to outside of the display device – to measure a resistance existing inside the display device with a measuring device disposed outside the display device. See, e.g., Kim ¶0062.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Li further teaches wherein the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) includes:
one pair of first structures ({303 between P1, P2}, {303 between P2, P3}) overlapping (e.g., have an area or range in common with) the first electrode (P1) and the second electrode (P3), respectively {Fig. 6}; and
a plurality of second structures ({304 between P1, P2}, {304 between P2, P3}) between (e.g., in the interval separating, at least partially) the one pair of first structures ({303 between P1, P2}, {303 between P2, P3}) and spaced apart from each other {Fig. 6}.
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 2, and Li further teaches wherein a cross section of the one pair of first structures ({303 between P1, P2}, {303 between P2, P3}) is configured to have a trapezoidal structure and a cross section of the plurality of second structures ({304 between P1, P2}, {304 between P2, P3}) is configured to have an inverted trapezoidal structure {Fig. 6 }.
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Li further teaches wherein portions of the connection layer (307) are a continuous structure {Fig. 6}.
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Li further teaches wherein a thickness of a first portion (e.g., between 309 & P2 at G1) of the connection layer (307) corresponding to the space between the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) is smaller than a thickness of a second portion (e.g., nearly-vertical portion of 307 directly contacting 304) of the connection layer (307) which is in contact with the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) {Fig. 6}.
Regarding claim 17, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li 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.
Li teaches in Fig. 6 a connection layer (307) that is both deposited on a plurality of separated structures (302-304) and not broken. Accordingly, Li’s device as modified by Kim 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 Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi (US20220238612A1).
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Li further teaches the first electrode (P1) and the second electrode (P3) are the same material (e.g., Mo/Al) {¶0046, 0049}.
Li 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 Li’s display device as modified by Kim 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 Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US20190097162A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li 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 Li’s display device as modified by Kim 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, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li does not teach 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 Li’s display device as modified by Kim 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, Li as modified by Kim 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 Li’s display device as modified by Kim 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, Li as modified by Li, Kim, and Wang teaches the display device according to claim 7, but Li 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 Li’s display device as modified by Li, Kim, 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.
Li 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 Li’s display device as modified by Li, Kim, and Wang based on the further teachings of Wang – such that all of Li’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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US20180068919A1) and Kang et al. (US20210320268A1).
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li does not teach further comprising:
a plurality of transistors in the active area and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes;
a planarization layer covering the plurality of transistors; and
anodes of the plurality of light emitting diodes on the planarization layer,
wherein at least one of the plurality of structures and the planarization layer are the same material, and
wherein the connection layer and the anodes are the same material.
In an analogous art, Chung teaches in Figs. 5, 6, and 8 and paragraphs [0037], [0040], and [0041] a plurality of transistors (210) in the active area (DA) and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes (320); a planarization layer (140) covering the plurality of transistors (210); and anodes (310) of the plurality of light emitting diodes (320) on the planarization layer (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim based on the teachings of Chung – such that a plurality of transistors are disposed in the active area and connected to the plurality of light emitting diodes; a planarization layer covers the plurality of transistors; and anodes of the plurality of light emitting diodes are disposed on the planarization layer – because all the claimed elements (e.g., transistors, active area, LEDs, planarization layer, anodes) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Chung), with no change in their respective functions (e.g., of operating as a pixel/sub-pixel unit), to yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP ¶2143(I)(A).
Li teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0046] the connection layer (307) and an anode (310) of a light-emitting diode are the same material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim and Chung based on the further teachings of Li such that – Li’s connection layer and Chung’s anodes are the same material – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Li further teaches in paragraph [0046] the plurality of structures ({303, 304 between P1, P2}, {303, 304 between P2, P3}) may be made of silicon nitride or silicon oxide. In an analogous art, Kang teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0120] a planarization layer (117) made of silicon nitride or silicon oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim and Chung based on the teachings of Kang – such that at least one of the plurality of structures and the planarization layer are the same material – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (US20190189951A1).
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li does not teach further comprising:
a second substrate covering the first substrate; and
a sealing member bonding the first substrate to the second substrate,
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode protrude from an area overlapping the second substrate to outside of the second substrate and the sealing member.
In an analogous art, Ren teaches in Fig. 2A a second substrate (210-2) covering a first substrate (210-1) {¶0049}; and
a sealing member (220) bonding the first substrate (210-1) to the second substrate (210-2) {¶0050},
wherein the first electrode (240) and the second electrode (250) protrude from an area overlapping the second substrate (210-2) to outside of the sealing member (220) {¶0051-0053}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim based on the teachings of Ren – such that a second substrate covers the first substrate; and a sealing member bonds the first substrate to the second substrate, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode protrude from an area overlapping the second substrate to outside of the second substrate and the sealing member – so a moisture detection device may be connected to the electrodes for making a moisture measurement without breaking the moisture seal provided by the sealing member and the first and second substrates. See, e.g., Ren ¶0057.
Kim teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraph [0061] a first electrode (43a, 83) and a second electrode (43b, 84) protrude to outside of a second substrate (300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim and Ren based on the further teachings of Kim – such that the first electrode and second electrode protrude to outside of the second substrate – to measure a resistance existing inside the display device with a measuring device disposed outside the display device. See, e.g., Kim ¶0062.
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Kim and Ren teaches the display device according to claim 9, but Li does not 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 Li’s display device as modified by Kim and Ren based on the further 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, Li as modified by Kim and Ren teaches the display device according to claim 9, but Li does not 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 Li’s display device as modified Kim and Ren based on the further 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 16, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li does not teach wherein a first end and a second end of the connection layer are in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively.
Ren teaches in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0057] a first end and a second end of a connection layer (230) are in contact with a first electrode (240) and a second electrode (250), respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified Kim based on the teachings of Ren – such that a first end and a second end of the connection layer are in contact with the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively – 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, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li 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 Li’s display device as modified Kim based on the teachings of Ren – such that Li’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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim and Ren as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US20180210245A1).
Regarding claim 11, Li as modified by Kim and Ren teaches the display device according to claim 9, but Li does not teach wherein the plurality of structures are disposed inside the sealing member.
In an analogous art, Yao teaches in Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraphs [0041] and [0065] a plurality of structures (4) disposed on a substrate (1) and between a first electrode (F1) and a second electrode (F2), a space being between each of the plurality of structures (4), a connection layer (6) on the plurality of structures (4) and electrically connecting the first electrode (F1) and the second electrode (F2), and the plurality of structures (4) are disposed inside a sealing member (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s display device as modified by Kim and Ren based on the teachings of Yao – such that the plurality of structures are disposed inside the sealing member – for the purpose of determining whether there is a micro gap or breaking sealant problem in the sealant. Yao ¶0065.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa (US20200235175A1).
Regarding claim 18, Li as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Li 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 Li’s display device as modified Kim 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US20070176171A1) teaches an organic light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an organic thin film layer and a second electrode are formed in the pixel region. A scan driver is formed in the non-pixel region. A second substrate is sealed spaced apart from the pixel region and the non-pixel region of the first substrate. A frit is formed along an edge of a non-pixel region of the second substrate, wherein the frit is formed so that it can be overlapped with a region excluding an active area of the scan driver formed in the non-pixel region.
Conclusion
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