DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
2. The oath/declaration filed on 12/21/2023 is acceptable.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/21/2023.
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 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.
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 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.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takenada et al., hereafter “Takenada” (U.S. Patent No. 11,958,073 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Takenada discloses a display device comprising:
a display area (DA) in which a plurality of display elements (20, Fig.
2) are provided;
a surrounding area (SA) around the display area (DA, Fig. 1); and
a first partition (6, Fig. 3) provided in the surrounding area (SA) (because the surrounding area (SA) around the display area (DA)), wherein
each of the display elements (20) includes a lower electrode (LE1/LE2/LE3), an upper electrode (UE1/UE2/UE3) which faces the lower electrode (LE1/LE2/LE3), and an organic layer (OR1/OR2/OR3) which is provided between the lower electrode (LE1/LE2/LE3) and the upper electrode (UE1/UE2/UE3) and emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (col. 7, lines 16-26), and the first partition (6) includes a first lower portion(61) and a first upper portion (62) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion (61) (Fig. 1-3 and col. 3, line 21-col. 7, line 26).
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PIAO Z (CN-112420776-A) in view of SUN L (CN-115117136-A) and further in view of Takenada et al., hereafter “Takenada” (U.S. Patent No. 11,958,073 B2).
Regarding claim 1, PIAO Z discloses a mother substrate for a display device, comprising:
a plurality of panel portions (20) each of which includes a display area (not shown) in which a plurality of display elements (PE/LEL/CE) are provided;
a margin area around (10) the panel portions (20); and wherein
each of the display elements includes a lower electrode (PE), an upper electrode (CE) which faces the lower electrode (PE), and an organic layer (LEL) which is provided between the lower electrode (PE) and the upper electrode (CE) (Figs. 1-3E and English Text).
PIAO Z discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose a first partition provided in the margin area, the organic layer emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, and the first partition includes a first lower portion and a first upper portion comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion.
SUN L, however, discloses a first partition (601) provided in the margin area (corresponding to peripheral (103)) (Fig. 2 and English Text).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of PIAO Z to provide a first partition provided in the margin area as taught by SUN L for a purpose of improving adhesion to the plurality of partitions.
PIAO Z and SUN L disclose the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the organic layer emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode, and the first partition includes a first lower portion and a first upper portion comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion.
Takenada, however, discloses the organic layer emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode (ANO) and the upper electrode (CAT) (Fig. 3 and col. 7. Lines 16-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of PIAO Z and SUN L to provide the organic layer emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode and the upper electrode as taught by Takenada for a purpose of increasing the luminance of the organic EL elements.
PIAO Z, SUN L and Takenada (citations to PIAO Z unless otherwise noted) discloses the first partition (6) includes a first lower portion (61) and a first upper portion (2) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion (Fig. 3 in Takenada).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 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.
Cited Prior Arts
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Takayama (U.S. Patent No. 12,108,631 B2) discloses a display device comprising the first partition (30) includes a first lower portion (31) and a first upper portion (32) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the first lower portion (31) (Fig. 5).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phuc T. Dang whose telephone number is 571-272-1776. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUC T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights