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 amendment filed on ***, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims *** are pending in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 15, 19-20, 22-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0232653) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display panel (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a substrate (100; Paragraph [0074]) comprising an opening area (OA; Paragraph [0074]), a display area surrounding at least a portion of the opening area (DA; Paragraph [0074]), and an intermediate area disposed between the opening area and the display area (MA; Paragraph [0074]); a light-emitting diode arranged in the display area and comprising a pixel electrode (221; Paragraph [0116]), an opposite electrode (223; Paragraph [0116]), and an intermediate layer (222; Paragraph [0116]) disposed between the pixel electrode and the opposite electrode (Fig. 6); an inorganic insulating layer arranged in the intermediate area and defining a groove surrounding the opening area (Fig. 7 area of 2G and 3G, 207; Paragraph [0110]); and a separator arranged in the intermediate area and comprising a first metal layer arranged in the groove and a second metal layer arranged on the first metal layer and having a tip protruding in a
direction crossing an upper surface of the inorganic insulating layer (Fig. 7 area of 2G & 3G, 212 & PT;
Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses wherein the opposite electrode comprises: a first
portion overlapping the second metal layer and a second portion disconnected from the first portion
(Fig. 7, 223 in SMA2, second portion being portion of 223 on opposite side of groove).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses a sub-metal layer arranged between the inorganic
insulating layer and the separator (Fig. 7, 113; Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses wherein the sub-metal layer covers at least a portion of
the upper surface of the inorganic insulating layer, in the intermediate area (Fig. 7, 133 & 207).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses wherein the tip comprises a first tip and a second tip
separated from the first tip when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 7, PT on
either side of grooves 2G & 3G; Paragraph [0136]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses wherein an etch stopper arranged between the
substrate and the separator and forming a bottom surface of the groove (120; Paragraph [0202]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses an electronic apparatus (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a display panel
comprising an opening area (OA; Paragraph [0074]), a display area surrounding at least a portion of the
opening area (DA; Paragraph [0074]), and an intermediate area disposed between the opening area and
the display area (MA; Paragraph [0074]); and a component arranged to overlap the opening area of the
display panel, wherein the display panel comprises: a substrate (100; Paragraph [0074]); a light-emitting
diode arranged on the substrate to overlap the display area and comprising a pixel electrode (221;
Paragraph [0116]), an opposite electrode (223; Paragraph [0116]), and an intermediate layer disposed
between the pixel electrode and the opposite electrode (222; Paragraph [0116]); an inorganic insulating
layer arranged on the substrate to overlap the intermediate area and defining a groove surrounding the opening area (Fig. 7 area in 2G & 3G, 207; Paragraph [0110]); and a separator arranged on the substrate
to overlap the intermediate area and comprising a first metal layer arranged in the groove and a second
metal layer arranged on the first metal layer and having a tip protruding in a direction crossing an upper
surface of the inorganic insulating layer (Fig. 7 area of 2G & 3G, 212 & PT; Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses a sub-metal layer arranged between the inorganic
insulating layer and the separator (Fig. 7, 113; Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses wherein the sub-metal layer covers at least a portion
of the upper surface of the inorganic insulating layer, in the intermediate area (Fig. 7, 133 & 207).
Regarding claim 22, Lee further discloses an opening arranged along a central line of the groove
and formed through the sub-metal layer, the first metal layer, and the second metal layer (Fig. 7 area of
2G & 3G, 212 & PT; Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee further discloses wherein the tip comprises a first tip and a second tip
separated from the first tip when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 7, PT on
either side of grooves 2G & 3G; Paragraph [0136]).
Regarding claim 25, Lee further discloses wherein an etch stopper arranged between the
substrate and the separator and forming a bottom surface of the groove (120; Paragraph [0202]).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0232653) (of record).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Lee teaches the inventions of claims 1 and 15, respectively, and further teaches a protruding tip with an angle (Fig. 7 area of 2G & 3G, 212 & PT; Paragraph [0141]) with eaves (Paragraph [0182]) that prevents moisture from entering the display area (Paragraph [0148]), but is silent as to the specific angle of the protruding tip. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to manufacture the invention of Lee, would have to select an angle for manufacturing the tip of the protrusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the angle of the tip with an upper surface of the substrate and the first angle is from 70 degrees to 90 degrees in order to provide a tip that is angled such that it provides a moisture blocking eave that prevents moisture from moving toward the display area of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee to have the angle of the tip with an upper surface of the substrate and the first angle is from 70 degrees to 90 degrees in order to provide a tip that is angled such that it provides a moisture blocking eave that prevents moisture from moving toward the display area of the device and to manufacture the device of Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 13-14, 16-18, 21, and 26 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.
Specifically, in claim 2, the requirement that the intermediate layer comprises an emission layer arranged to correspond to the pixel electrode and a functional layer extending from the display area to the intermediate area, and wherein a protrusion height of the tip protruding from an upper surface of the first metal layer is greater than a sum of a thickness of the functional layer and a thickness of the opposite electrode is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 3-4 are objected to based on their dependence from claim 2.
Specifically, in claim 8, the requirement that the sub-metal layer is arranged only on a side surface and a bottom surface of the groove is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 9 is objected to based on its dependence from claim 8.
Specifically, in claim 13, the requirement that the groove and the separator are provided in plural, wherein the intermediate area comprises a first sub-area and a second sub-area, wherein the inorganic insulating layer comprises a first inorganic insulating layer arranged in the first sub-area and having a first groove and a second inorganic insulating layer arranged in the second sub-area and having a second groove, and wherein a first height from an upper surface of the substrate to an upper surface of the first inorganic insulating layer is different from a second height from the upper surface of the substrate to an upper surface of the second inorganic insulating layer is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 14 is objected to based on its dependence from claim 13.
Specifically, in claim 16, the requirement that a protrusion height of the tip protruding from an upper surface of the first metal layer is greater than a sum of a thickness of the functional layer and a thickness of the opposite electrode is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 17-18 are objected to based on their dependence from claim 16.
Specifically, in claim 21, the requirement that the sub-metal layer is arranged only on a side surface and a bottom surface of the groove is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Specifically, in claim 26, the requirement that a first height from an upper surface of the substrate to an upper surface of the first inorganic insulating layer is different from a second height from the upper surface of the substrate to an upper surface of the second inorganic insulating layer is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejections over Lee et al. (US 2023/0232653) are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to the 102(a)(2) rejections over Lee et al. (US 2023/0232653). Applicant argues that Lee should be disqualified as prior art because the subject matter disclosed by Lee and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by Samsung Display Co., LTD.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that while Lee and the instant application may have been jointly owned by Samsung Display Co., LTD at the time of filing, the Lee reference names “another inventor” and thus qualifies as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) because the inventive entities of the instant application and the Lee reference are not the same. See MPEP 2154.01(c). Thus the 102(a)(2) and 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNE M HINES whose telephone number is (571)272-2285. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00-4:30.
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, James Greece, can be reached on 571-272-3711. 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.
/Anne M Hines/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2879