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
Applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 03 April 2026 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to recite the thickness of the filler ranging from 60% to less than 100% or from 187% to 400% of a thickness of the sealing member. Applicant’s original disclosure recites the thickness of the filler having a broad range of 60% to 400% of the thickness of the sealing member. There is no indication that values of greater than 100% and less than 187% are excluded from the broad range of 60% to 400%. Also, the original disclosure does not indicate that the range of 60% to less than 100% or the range of 187% to 400% are useful. The ranges now recited in the claim are not supported by applicant’s original disclosure, and are thus deemed new matter (See MPEP § 2163(I)(B); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795—subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range).
Due to their dependencies upon independent claim 1, claims 2-11 are also rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 5-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 8,344,614).
Regarding independent claim 1, Choi teaches a display device comprising a substrate (Fig. 1, Element 101) that includes a display area (Fig. 1; central portion comprising organic emission unit 103) and a non-display area (Fig. 1; peripheral area outside of organic emission unit 103); a display element layer (Fig. 1, Element 103) disposed on the display area of the substrate; an opposing substrate (Fig. 1, Element 102) that faces the substrate and the display element layer; a sealing member (Fig. 1, Element 104) disposed on the non-display area and that couples the substrate and the opposing substrate; and a filler (Fig. 1, Element 105) disposed between the substrate and the opposing substrate, wherein a thickness of the filler ranges from 60% to less than 100% or from 187% to 400% of a thickness of the sealing member (Fig. 1; col. 5, ln. 41-47).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the thickness of the filler increasing from the non-display area toward the display area (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the thickness of the filler increasing from the non-display area toward a center of the display area (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the substrate and the opposing substrate each including glass (col. 3, ln. 26-38).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches the filler in direct contact with the substrate, the display element layer, and the opposing substrate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches the filler in contact with the sealing member and filling a space between the substrate and the opposing substrate (Fig. 3F).
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches the filler having a viscosity of 1,000 to 100,000 cP (col. 1, ln. 67).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 8,344,614) in view of Chida (US 9,917,282).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the thickness of the filler decreasing and then increasing from the sealing member toward a center of the display area.
Chida teaches a display device comprising a filler (Fig. 3F, Element 17) with a thickness decreasing and then increasing (Fig. 4D) from a sealing member (Fig. 3F) toward a center of a display area. Chida discloses the filler structure being provided for improving reliability of the light-emitting device (col. 8, ln. 62-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Choi with the filler structure taught by Chida for improving reliability of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the filler including at least one of an acrylate resin that contains silicon, an epoxy resin that contains silicon, a viny-based resin that contains silicon, or a phenyl-based resin that contains silicon.
Chida teaches the filler including at least one of an acrylate resin that contains silicon, an epoxy resin that contains silicon, a viny-based resin that contains silicon, or a phenyl-based resin that contains silicon (col. 9, ln. 8-18). Same motivation applies as for claim 4 earlier.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify the filler spaced apart from the sealing member and covers the display element layer.
Chida teaches the filler spaced apart from the sealing member and covers the display element layer (Fig. 3F). Same motivation applies as for claim 4 earlier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 and 29 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent claims 12 and 29, applicant has incorporated the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 8 into the claims. Thus, independent claims 12 and 29 are allowable.
Due to their dependencies upon independent claim 12, claims 13-20 are also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, in regards to independent claim 1, filed 03 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, in regards to independent claim 1, that Choi does not teach the thickness of the filler ranging from 60% to less than 100% or from 187% to 400% of the thickness of the sealing member, the Examiner notes the claim requires the filler to have a thickness that ranges from 60% to less than 100% or from 187% to 400% of the thickness of the sealing member. As also noted by applicant, Choi explicitly teaches the thickness of the filler ranging from 100% to 187% of the thickness of the sealing member. Thus, Choi at least teaches the thickness of the sealing member satisfying the range “from 187% to 400%” of the thickness of the sealing member.
In response to applicant’s argument, in regards to claim 9, that Chida does not teach the filler spaced apart from the sealing member since the temporary sealing layer (18b) is removed during manufacture of the device, the Examiner notes that Chida discloses that the temporary sealing layer may be removed, suggesting that it can remain. Thus, the combination of Choi and Chida teaches the claimed invention as discussed earlier.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights