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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hu et al. 20220310724 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 should be dependent on claim 7 and not claim 17 to ensure that claim 7 is lacking antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. 20220310724.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 3 of Hu discloses a display panel, comprising:
a substrate 101 having a display area 103, a transition area (area between 3 and 103), and a barrier area (area 3), the barrier area being outside of the display area, and the transition area being separated between the display area and the barrier area;
PNG
media_image3.png
287
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a driver layer 2, on a side of the substrate and within the display area, comprising a device layer (transistor layer), a wiring layer (layer above layer 26 in fig. 7) and a first protective layer 26;
wherein the wiring layer is on a side of the device layer away from the substrate, and the first protective layer 26 covers the (bottom of the) wiring layer and (the top of) the device layer;
a barrier structure (3 and 26 in area 3), 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 (layers below element 3), a barrier layer 3 and a second protective layer 403 above 3);
wherein the barrier layer 3 is on a side of the support layer 26 away from the substrate and in a different area of a same film layer 26 than the wiring layer, and a side wall of the barrier layer is provided with a barrier groove 301 surrounding the driver layer; and
the second protective layer 403 is on a surface of the barrier layer away from the substrate and in a different area of a same protective film 26 than the first protective layer 26 (in 103 region) ; and
a light-emitting layer 402 covering the driver layer and the barrier structure and being discontinuously at least at the barrier groove;
wherein the barrier layer 3 is provided with barrier grooves (301) on the side wall close to the driver layer and on the side wall (301) away from the driver layer;
each of the wiring layer and the barrier layer (see fig. 7) comprises a first metal layer 31, a second metal layer 32, and a third metal layer 33 stacked in sequence along a direction away from the substrate;
the first metal layer and the third metal layer are of a same material (titanium – par [0082]) which is different from a material of the second metal layer 32 (aluminum); 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.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 3 of Hu discloses wherein the support layer comprises: a first insulation layer 22 on a side of the substrate; a first conductive layer 201a on a surface of the first insulation layer away from the substrate; and a second insulation layer 24 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. 3 of Hu discloses wherein the support layer further comprises: a third insulation layer (portion of 26) 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. 3 of Hu discloses wherein the support layer further comprises: a second conductive layer 201b on a surface of the third insulation layer away from the substrate; and a fourth insulation layer (portion of 26 above 201b) covering a surface of the second conductive layer 201b 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. 3 of Hu discloses wherein the barrier structure further comprises: a first spacer layer (portion of 401) on a surface of the second protective layer away from the substrate; and a second spacer layer (portion of 403) on a surface of the first spacer layer away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 15, fig. 3 of Hu discloses a display device, comprising the display panel of claim 1.
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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Regarding claim 9, HU 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 Hu 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, HU 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 Hu 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.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to form a display panel of Hu further comprising: an encapsulation layer covering the light-emitting layer and the barrier structure in order to form an encapsulant to protect the display panel.
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
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 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