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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20200028915 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0151655 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a mother substrate comprising:
a support substrate (101);
a first organic layer (141) on one surface of the support substrate;
a first inorganic layer (121) on the first organic layer (141) and covering an edge of the first organic layer (141);
a second organic layer (142) on the first inorganic layer (121);
a second inorganic layer (122) on the second organic layer (142) and covering an edge of the second organic layer;
a plurality of display cells (110 Lee et al. teaches a plurality of pixels may be disposed in the display area DA and 110 represents the display area but not the cells) on the second inorganic layer (122) in a thickness direction of the second inorganic layer (122), such that the plurality of display cells (not shown) are located further from the support substrate than the second inorganic layer; and
an encapsulation cover layer (180) on a first inorganic encapsulation area in which the first inorganic layer (121) and the second inorganic layer (122) are in contact with each other.
Lee et al. does not clearly articulate the placement of the display cells as being further from the support substrate than the second inorganic layer as required by the claim.
Kim et al. teaches a display device including a first flexible substrate (PI1), a low reflection layer (LAL) on the first flexible substrate, a second flexible substrate (PI2) on the low reflection layer, and a thin film transistor and an organic light emitting diode on the second flexible substrate, wherein the organic light emitting diode is positioned on an overcoat layer (OC) and is encapsulated by an upper protective member (UP). Kim et al. therefore teaches that the display element is formed above intervening substrate-side layers and is located further from the supporting substrate than underlying layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display structure of Lee et al. to position the display cells in a manner taught by Kim et al., so that the display cells are located further from the support substrate than the second inorganic layer, because Kim et al. teaches a known and predictable placement of a display element in a layered display stack. The combination would have yielded the claimed structure with no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation cover layer (180) covers an entirety of the first inorganic encapsulation area.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 1.
Lee et al. discloses embodiments with “shadow regions,” exposed substrate areas, and examples where organic and inorganic edges are arranged so portions may be exposed for cutting/insertion areas (see FIG.3, FIG.9, FIG.14 and related descriptions discussing main region 120a and shadow region 120b and exposed regions; also removal/exposure to facilitate cutting and relieve stress).
Kim et al. discusses exposure holes and areas used for connections/grounding (exposure hole LH, silver dot AGD, FIG.4–5, [0058]–[0060]) and shows examples where some areas are left exposed for electrical interconnects and processing reasons.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to leave a portion of the first inorganic encapsulation area exposed (or form insertion/exposure areas) as Lee et al. teaches such exposures for cutting/separation and to avoid wrinkles/processing problems. Kim et al. independently shows exposed regions and processing holes. Combining these teachings yields the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 1.
Where Lee et al. repeatedly discusses relative sizes and explicitly teaches that inorganic layers can extend beyond organic layer edges (e.g., in FIG.10 Lee et al. indicates inorganics may be larger than organic films and edges of inorganics may reach substrate). Lee et al. also discusses design choices where an outer cover or protective overlayer is larger to protect edges and accommodate alignment tolerance (see Lee et al.’s descriptions of inorganics and cover/protective layers, FIGs.8–11; FIG.11 discussion of functional layer and cover layer 162).
Kim et al. teaches protective members and cover layers and discusses designs where a cover extends beyond underlying areas to improve sealing/adhesion/reliability (upper protective member UP may be metal thin film; description of cover width and overlapping for grounding and protection, ¶0057–0060 and related passages).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make a design choice to cover the layer wider than the underlying contact area to provide margin for alignment tolerances and improve mechanical protection and sealing, as taught by Lee et al.’s geometry and Kim et al.’s protective‑cover teachings.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 1.
Lee et al. teaches a display panel (mother substrate) having an array of display cells (pixels) formed on a stacked film structure that includes inorganic and organic layers and a multilayer encapsulation arrangement surrounding the pixels. In particular, Lee et al. discloses thin‑film transistors (TFTs) formed on the display‑region inorganic films/barriers, subsequent planarization/overcoat layers, light‑emitting devices (OLEDs) formed on the planarization layers (pixel electrode, organic light‑emitting layer, and counter electrode), and a thin‑film encapsulation (TFE) stack including inorganic/organic/inorganic layers that encapsulates the light‑emitting elements (see KR Figures and descriptive passages: e.g., FIGs. 12–14, FIGs. 20–23, FIGs. 29–34; text describing display element OD, first/second electrodes, encapsulation inorganic/organic films).
Kim et al. discloses conventional TFT + OLED pixel stacks, planarization layers (overcoat OC; planarization 160/180), and thin‑film encapsulation arrangements and further teaches protective cover/upper protective members (including metal thin film options) for mechanical protection and grounding (see Kim ¶0053–¶0060, ¶0101–¶0114, and figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the time of the invention to form display cells as taught by Lee et al. (TFTs on an inorganic layer, planarization layer(s) over the TFTs, OLED elements over the planarization, and encapsulation stack covering the OLEDs), and to use materials and protective cover options taught by Kim et al. Lee et al. alone discloses each structural element of claim 5; Kim et al. further supplies conventional material/cover options and reinforces predictability. The combined teachings make the claimed structure an obvious design choice to a person skilled in the art because the use of planarization layers under OLEDs and TFE stacks to encapsulate pixels are known and routine manufacturing choices for reliability and sealing.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 5, wherein the encapsulation cover layer and the at least one planarization layer include same organic material (Lee et al. explicitly states embodiments where the encapsulation cover layer ECLD is formed simultaneously or concurrently with the first planarization layer 160 (or second planarization 180) and in that case “the encapsulation cover layer ECLD may include the same organic material as the first planarization layer 160” (see KR: discussion tied to FIGs. 15–18 / description of forming ECLD concurrently with planarization layers; e.g., text around operation S220 in the KR manufacturing description).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of display cells further comprises a bank covering an edge of the first electrode of each of the plurality of light emitting elements, and wherein the encapsulation cover layer and the bank include a same organic material (Lee et al. describes embodiments where the encapsulation cover layer ECLD may be formed simultaneously/concurrently with the bank 190 and explicitly notes the encapsulation cover layer may include the same organic material as the bank (see KR: FIGs. 19–22 and the associated text describing forming the bank and ECLD together).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 5.
Lee et al. teaches the bank (pixel-defining) structure around the first electrode (pixel electrode) in its OLED stack (see KR, display element OD with first electrode FE and pixel-defining layer PDL in FIGs. 29–34 and accompanying text), and teaches multiple patterned organic features in the peripheral/display areas (e.g., blocking members) formed of the same materials as the passivation or pixel-defining layer to control overflow and improve sealing (Lee et al. claims and descriptions stating the blocking member may comprise the same material as the pixel defining layer and/or passivation; see, e.g., Lee et al. claim language “the blocking member … comprising the same material as the passivation film or the pixel defining layer” and multi-layer blocking member embodiments).
Kim et al. teaches conventional organic bank layers (BNK) and organic overcoats/planarization (e.g., polyimide, acrylic, epoxy) in OLED displays (Kim ¶¶0101–0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the time of the invention to form a spacer on the bank for shadow mask support/spacing during OLED deposition and to fabricate that spacer from the same photo-patternable organic resin as the encapsulation cover/organic cover layer and/or the bank to reduce process steps and improve adhesion/CTE compatibility. Lee et al. already teaches patterned organic features (banks and blocking members) and expressly teaches using the same organic material for different patterned structures (e.g., blocking member same as PDL). Kim et al. teaches the materials set and conventional use of organic resins for banks/planarization/covers. Using the same organic resin for the spacer and encapsulation cover layer is a routine manufacturing choice with predictable benefits (fewer coatings/cures, matched adhesion/CTE, reduced particulates). Accordingly, the added limitations of claim 8 would have been obvious over Lee et al. in view of Kim et al.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 5.
Lee et al. discloses an OLED display stack having TFTs, pixel electrodes (first electrodes), organic emission layers, second electrodes, and multilayer encapsulation (inorganic/organic/inorganic) covering the display area. Lee et al. also discloses conductive connection electrodes (gate/data/pad conductors) formed of conventional metals used in display TFT/electrode fabrication. [Insert KR figure/paragraph cites as desired.]
Kim et al. discloses conventional TFT+OLED structures and explicitly teaches a metal upper protective member (a metal thin‑film cover) usable as an encapsulation/protection layer for flexible OLED panels; Kim also lists typical electrode metals (e.g., Mo, Al, Ti, Cu
Neither Lee et al. nor Kim et al. expressly teaches using the identical metal for both (a) a metal encapsulation cover layer and (b) a first connection electrode. The Examiner takes Official Notice that, prior to the effective filing date, it was common practice in the flat‑panel/OLED industry to use the same metallic material (for example, Mo or Al or an Al alloy) across multiple deposited patterned films (such as connection electrodes and metal cover/shield films) to reduce tool/target changes and simplify processing. That routine practice would have provided a clear motivation to select the same metal for the cover and the electrode with predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the encapsulation cover layer and the first connection electrode from the same metal material.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 5, wherein the encapsulation layer comprises Lee et al. discloses a mother substrate/display device having light emitting elements with a multilayer encapsulation stack comprising: a first encapsulation inorganic layer disposed on the second electrode of each light emitting element (first inorganic encapsulation 121 over the cathode/second electrode]); an encapsulation organic layer formed on the first encapsulation inorganic layer (encapsulation organic 140/240); and a second encapsulation inorganic layer formed on the encapsulation organic layer (second inorganic 122/222). Lee et al. further discloses that the first and second inorganic layers and the interposed encapsulation organic layer are sequentially stacked and arranged to extend/overlap to surround the display cell regions (i.e., a “second inorganic encapsulation area” in which the second inorganic layer, the first encapsulation inorganic layer, and the second encapsulation inorganic layer are sequentially stacked surrounding each display cell) (stacked inorganics surrounding pixels, e.g., FIGs. 8–11, 20–23).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation cover layer (180) includes a metal material (180, may include aluminum oxide, for example, Al2O3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights