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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I-A-2 (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/10/26.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines “x, y, z are natural numbers without defining any upper limit which is indefinite or impossible to make any component xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O with any huge bigger numbers. An upper limit is required to make the chemical component reasonable to make.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected being dependent on rejected 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 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 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.
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong et al (US 2020/0259056 A1) in view of Yoon et al (US 2019/0006624 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Hong teaches in Fig. 1, 5-6, 8-9 about a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 comprising:
a first surface 101;
a second surface 105 opposite the first surface; and
a first side surface 103 disposed between the first surface and the second surface;
a light emitting element 150 disposed on the first surface;
a side wiring 240 disposed on the first surface, the first side surface, and the second surface; and
an overcoat layer 180 covering the side wiring (Fig. 9), wherein the overcoat layer comprises at least one of CaCO3 and xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O where x, y, and z are natural numbers.
Hong does not teach wherein the overcoat layer comprises at least one of CaCO3 and xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O where x, y, and z are natural numbers.
Yoon teaches in Fig. 7, [0043], [0093] wherein the overcoat layer 10 ([0093] teaches to cover wires on the OLED) comprises at least one of CaCO3 [0043] and xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O where x, y, and z are natural numbers.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the overcoat layer comprises at least one of CaCO3 and xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O according to the teachings of Yoon in Hong’s device to cover the side wirings and therefore, the moisture absorption and the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) characteristics of the coating/covering layer can be further improved (Yoon, [0049]).
Regarding claim 7: Hong teaches in Fig. 9 wherein an average thickness of the overcoat layer is about 1 to about 3 times an average thickness of the side wiring.
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures
Regarding claim 8: Yoon teaches in [0065] wherein the overcoat layer comprises at least one polymer selected from epoxy resin and acrylic resin.
Regarding claim 9: Hong teaches in Fig. 6, 9 wherein the substrate comprises a first chamfered surface disposed between the first surface and the first side surface and a second chamfered surface disposed between the second surface and the first side surface, the side wiring is further disposed on the first chamfered surface and the second chamfered surface, and the overcoat layer covers all of the first surface, the first chamfered surface, the first side surface, the second chamfered surface, and the second surface.
Claims 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong et al (US 2020/0259056 A1) in view of Yoon et al (US 2019/0006624 A1) and further in view of Stemmermann et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0093774 A1)
Regarding claim 2: Hong in view of Yoon does not talk about wherein xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O of the overcoat layer is 3CaO·2SiO2·3H2O.
Stemmermann teaches in abstruct and [0042] about producing components including preparing an aqueous suspension of solids including calcium oxide CaO and silicon dioxide SiO2 with a molar ratio of Ca:Si that is between 0.5:1.0 and 2.5:1.0.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the overcoat layer according to the teachings of Stemmermann which comprises CaCO3, SiO2, and H2O as reactants to form the overcoat layer in Hong’s device and thereby to improve workability or enhance strength (Stemmermann, [0011]).
Please refer to
2131.02 Genus-Species Situations
III. A GENERIC DISCLOSURE WILL ANTICIPATE A CLAIMED SPECIES COVERED BY THAT DISCLOSURE WHEN THE SPECIES CAN BE "AT ONCE ENVISAGED" FROM THE DISCLOSURE
Regarding claim 6: Hong in view of Yoon does not talk about wherein xCaO·ySiO2·zH2O is generated through a pozzolanic reaction using CaCO3, SiO2, and H2O as reactants.
Stemmermann teaches in abstruct and [0042] about producing components including preparing an aqueous suspension of solids including calcium oxide CaO and silicon dioxide SiO2 with a molar ratio of Ca:Si that is between 0.5:1.0 and 2.5:1.0.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the overcoat layer according to the teachings of Stemmermann which comprises CaCO3, SiO2, and H2O as reactants to form the overcoat layer in Hong’s device and thereby to improve workability or enhance strength (Stemmermann, [0011]).
The examiner had to assume what the product would be by the process claimed. For example, in claim it was assumed that the product was havingthe overcoat layer. The claim that it was having the overcoat layer “generated through a pozzolanic reaction using CaCO3, SiO2, and H2O as reactants” was not considered to have full patentable weight. A “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims,” In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90; In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. The limitation allowable is “a size of the first particles is larger than a size of the second particles” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Claims 4-5 are also allowable being dependent on allowable claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights