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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 3-10, 12-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130001620A1; Sugisawa et al.; (hereinafter “Sugisawa”) in view of US20220231257A1; Wang et al.; (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1 (currently amended), Sugisawa teaches a mother substrate (#801, Figure 9) for a display device ([0004]), comprising:
a plurality of panel portions each of which includes a display area (Figures 1A-B, #160-161R/G/B) in which a plurality of display elements (#130) are provided;
a margin area around the panel portions (non-emission regions between adjacent units #160-161R/G/B); and
a first partition (#150) provided in the margin area, wherein
each of the display elements (#130) includes a lower electrode (#118), an upper electrode (#122) which faces the lower electrode, and an organic layer (#120) which is provided between the lower electrode (#118) and the upper electrode (#122) and emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode (#118) and the upper electrode (#122), and
the first partition (#150) includes a first lower portion (Figure 1D, #150a) formed of an organic insulating material ([0068]), and a first upper portion (#150b) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (Figure 1D, #150b has a larger width than #150a),
the panel portion comprises an organic insulating layer (#116, Figure 5A) formed of the same organic insulating material as the first lower portion (#150a, [0068] & [0121]) and provided in the display area (#160-161R/G/B), and
the lower electrode (#118) is provided above the organic insulating layer (#116).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the organic insulating layer is formed in a same layer as the first lower portion.
However, Wang teaches a comparable display substrate ([0023]), wherein an organic insulating layer (#106, Figures 10-11 of Wang annotated, [0046]) is formed in a same layer as a first lower portion (#a) of a partition (#1021, in which, portion #a of
PNG
media_image1.png
1105
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
dam #1021 and layer #106 form in a same layer, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang that further provides dam structure encapsulating the display device which prevents overflow of material during manufacture process according to Wang, [0022].
Regarding Claim 3 (currently amended), Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the panel portion comprises a rib (#124, Figure 1B) comprising a pixel aperture (#160R/G/B) overlapping the lower electrode (#118),
the organic layer (#120) is in contact with the lower electrode (#118) through the pixel aperture, and
the rib (#124) and the first upper portion (#150b) are formed of a same inorganic insulating material ([0070] & [0122], for instance, silicon oxide).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the rib and the first upper portion are formed in a same layer.
However, Wang teaches a rib (#108, Figure 10-11 of Wang annotated, pixel defining layer) and a first upper portion (#b) are formed in a same layer ([0041], portion #b of #1021 and layer #108 form in the same layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4 (currently amended), Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the lower electrode (#118) and the first upper portion (#150b) are formed of a same conductive material ([0070] & [0123], for instance, aluminum).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the lower electrode and the first upper portion are formed in a same layer.
However, Wang teaches a lower electrode (#107, Figure 10-11 of Wang annotated, anode) and a first upper portion (#b) are formed in a same layer (portion #b of #1021 and anode #107 form in a same layer, on top of layer #106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Sugisawa teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1.
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach each of the panel portions further comprises a surrounding area around the display area, and the first partition is provided in the margin area and the surrounding area.
However, Wang comprising each of panel portions further comprises a surrounding area around the display area, and the first partition is provided in the margin area and the surrounding area (Figures 1-2, encapsulation dams #1021 and #1022 disposes in bezel/VSS areas in non-display region #BB surrounding display region #AA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the first partition comprises a plurality of linear portions provided parallel to each other (Figure 1A, partitions #150 are parallel to each other), and
the linear portions are arranged at intervals less than or equal to 200 μm (Figure 13A, [0262], interval between partitions #150 can be less than or equal to a total of length/width #L3 and #L5 which is less than 200 μm).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the first partition forms a plurality of closed areas as seen in plan view.
However, Wang teaches first partition forms a plurality of closed areas as seen in plan view (Figure 1, encapsulation dams #1021-1022 comprise enclosed areas).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches each of the panel portion comprises a second partition (#150, Figure 1B, partition structures) provided between the display elements (#130) in the display area, and
the second partition (#150) includes a second lower portion (#150a, Figure 1D), and a second upper portion (#150b) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the second lower portion (#150b has a larger width than #150a).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches an insulating layer (#114-124, Figure 5A) located under the first partition (#150) in the margin area;
a stacked film (#130) which includes the organic layer (#120) and the upper electrode (#122) and covers the insulating layer (#114-124) and the first partition (#150); and
a sealing layer (#168) which covers the stacked film (#130), wherein
the stacked film is divided into a plurality of portions by the first partition (portions of layer #120 and electrode #122 are separated by partition #150), and
the sealing layer continuously covers the plurality of portions (coat layer #168 covers #120 and #122).
Regarding Claim 10 (currently amended), Sugisawa teaches a display device ([0004]), comprising:
a display area (Figures 1A-B, #160-161R/G/B) in which a plurality of display elements (#130) are provided;
a surrounding area around the display area (non-emission regions between adjacent units #160-161R/G/B); and
a first partition (#150) provided in the surrounding area; and
an organic insulating layer (#116, Figure 5A) provided in the display area, wherein
each of the display elements (#130) includes a lower electrode (#118), an upper electrode (#122) which faces the lower electrode, and an organic layer (#120) which is provided between the lower electrode (#118) and the upper electrode (#122) and emits light based on a potential difference between the lower electrode (#118) and the upper electrode (#122),
the first partition (#150) includes a first lower portion (Figure 1D, #150a) formed of an organic insulating material ([0068]), and a first upper portion (#150b) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (Figure 1D, #150b has a larger width than #150a).
the organic insulating layer (#116) is formed of a same organic insulating material as the first lower portion (#150a, [0068] & [0121]), and
the lower electrode (#118) is provided above the organic insulating layer (#116).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the organic insulating layer is formed in a same layer as the first lower portion.
However, Wang teaches a comparable display substrate ([0023]), wherein an organic insulating layer (#106, Figures 10-11 of Wang annotated, [0046]) is formed in a same layer as a first lower portion (#a) of a partition (#1021, in which, portion #a of dam #1021 and layer #106 form in a same layer, [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang that further provides dam structure encapsulating the display device which prevents overflow of material during manufacture process according to Wang, [0022].
Regarding Claim 12 (currently amended), Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 10, wherein Sugisawa further teaches a rib (#124, Figure 1B) comprising a pixel aperture (#160R/G/B) overlapping the lower electrode (#118), wherein
the organic layer (#120) is in contact with the lower electrode (#118) through the pixel aperture, and
the rib (#124) and the first upper portion (#150b) are formed of a same inorganic insulating material ([0070] & [0122], for instance, silicon oxide).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the rib and the first upper portion are formed in a same layer.
However, Wang teaches a rib (#108, Figure 10-11 of Wang annotated, pixel defining layer) and a first upper portion (#b) are formed in a same layer ([0041], portion #b of #1021 and layer #108 form in the same layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13 (currently amended), Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the mother substrate as described in claim 10, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the lower electrode (#118) and the first upper portion (#150b) are formed of a same conductive material ([0070] & [0123], for instance, aluminum).
Sugisawa does not explicitly teach the lower electrode and the first upper portion are formed in a same layer.
However, Wang teaches a lower electrode (#107, Figure 10-11 of Wang annotated, anode) and a first upper portion (#b) are formed in a same layer (portion #b of #1021 and anode #107 form in a same layer, on top of layer #106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Sugisawa with the teaching of Wang for reason set forth in rejection of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 14, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the display device as described in claim 10, wherein Sugisawa further teaches a second partition (#150, Figure 1B, partition structures) provided between the display elements (#130) in the display area, and
the second partition (#150) includes a second lower portion (#150a, Figure 1D), and a second upper portion (#150b) comprising an end portion which protrudes from a side surface of the second lower portion (#150b has a larger width than #150a).
Regarding Claim 21, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the display device as described in claim 1, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the organic insulating layer (#116, Figure 5A) and the first lower portion (#150a) are formed in a same process (the recited limitation is a product-by-process claim. Such method step(s) are not considered to render an old apparatus patentable where the prior art teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. That is even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability of the claims is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. In this regard, both claimed products and the prior art products would have been the same or substantially the same).
Regarding Claim 22, Sugisawa in view of Wang teaches the display device as described in claim 10, wherein Sugisawa further teaches the organic insulating layer (#116, Figure 5A) and the first lower portion (#150a) are formed in a same process (see rejection of claim 21).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 10 and corresponding arguments, pages 9-11 of the remarks, filed 09/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of the claims as unpatentable over Sugisawa have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugisawa in view of Wang. Wang has been introduced in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 10 (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of amended claims 1 and 10 above).
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 TIEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm ET.
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, CHRISTINE S KIM can be reached on (571)272-8458. 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.
/TIEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
