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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
It is argued that Both Group I (claims 1-10, and 15-18) and Group II (claims 11-14 and 19-20) drawn to the same display panel, with the only difference being that the groups are respectively for display panel device/method for manufacturing the display panel device. Group I and Group II have at least common features as follows: the transition area being separated between the display area and the barrier area; the barrier layer ... in a different area of a same film layer than the wiring layer; the second protective layer ... in a different area of a same protective film than the first protective layer.
However, the common features including as claimed cannot qualify as special technical features as they do not provide a contribution over the prior art, Park et al. 20200235180, as shown in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “the protective film” lacks antecedent basis.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. 20200235180.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 8 of Park discloses a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 100 having a display area DA, a transition area SMA1, and a barrier area SMA2, the barrier area SMA2 being outside of the display area DA, and the transition area SMA1 being separated between the display area and the barrier area;
a driver layer, on a side of the substrate and within the display area, comprising a device layer (TFT layer), a wiring layer (DL and CM layer) and a first protective layer 211: wherein the wiring layer is on a side of the device layer away from the substrate, and the first protective layer covers the wiring layer and the device layer;
PNG
media_image2.png
508
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a barrier structure (fig. 9), on the same side of the substrate as the driver layer and in the barrier area, surrounding the driver layer and comprising a support layer (combination of 209 and all layer above substrate), a barrier layer 210 (in fig. 9 above) and a second protective layer 211P;
wherein the barrier layer is on a side of the support layer away from the substrate and in a different area of a same film layer than the wiring layer (wiring layer is CM and DL which is layer 210 – par [0161]), and a side wall of the barrier layer is provided with a barrier groove G surrounding the driver layer; and
the second protective layer 211P is on a surface of the barrier layer away from the substrate and in a different area of a same protective film 209 than the first protective layer 209; and
PNG
media_image3.png
536
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a light-emitting layer 230/223/222c/222a covering the driver layer and the barrier structure and being discontinuously at least at the barrier groove.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 8 of Park discloses a display device, comprising the display panel of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 8 of Park discloses wherein the barrier layer is provided with barrier grooves on the side wall close to the driver layer and on the side wall away from the driver layer: each of the wiring layer and the barrier layer comprises a first metal layer, a second metal layer, and a third metal layer stacked in sequence along a direction away from the substrate (par [0162] - (Ti/Al/Ti)): the first metal layer and the third metal layer are of a same material which is different from a material of the second metal layer; and in the barrier layer, a boundary of an orthographic projection of the second metal layer on the substrate is within boundaries of orthographic projections of the first metal layer and the third metal layer on the substrate to form the barrier groove G (see fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 3, fig. 8 of Park discloses wherein the support layer comprises: a first insulation layer 201 on a side of the substrate; a first conductive layer Act on a surface of the first insulation layer away from the substrate; and a second insulation layer 203 covering a surface of the first conductive layer away from the substrate; and wherein the barrier layer is on a side of the second insulation layer away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, fig. 8 of Park discloses wherein the support layer further comprises: a third insulation layer 205 covering a surface of the second insulation layer away from the substrate; and wherein the barrier layer is on a side of the third insulation layer away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, fig. 8 of Park discloses wherein the support layer further comprises: a second conductive layer GE on a surface of the third insulation layer away from the substrate; and a fourth insulation layer 207 covering a surface of the second conductive layer away from the substrate; and wherein the barrier layer is on a surface of the fourth insulation layer away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 9A of Park discloses wherein the barrier structure further comprises: a first spacer layer 215P on a surface of the second protective layer away from the substrate; and a second spacer layer217P on a surface of the first spacer layer away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 18, fig. 8 of Park discloses further comprising: an encapsulation layer 300 covering the light-emitting layer and the barrier structure.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein a material of the protective film comprises at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxide.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)
See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc.v.Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
As such it would it would have been obvious to form a display panel of Park comprising wherein a material of the protective film comprises at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxide in order to use material desired by applicant to meet applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein a thickness of the protective film is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm, and is less than or equal to 0.2 μm.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a display panel of Park comprising wherein a thickness of the protective film is greater than or equal to 0.1 μm, and is less than or equal to 0.2 μm in order to meet applicant’s specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571 )272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights