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 Species 1 drawn to Figure (8) (encompassed by claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 04/202/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 12/18/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 12/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1, 4, 7-9 and 11-12are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu).
Regarding claim 1; Wei teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 300) including a light emitting area (Light Emitting Area) and a non-light emitting area (Non-Light Emitting Area) located outside the light emitting area (Light Emitting Area);
a plurality of sub-pixels (12) disposed on the display panel (300);
a plurality of color filters (22) disposed to respectively correspond to the plurality of sub- pixels (12);
a dam pattern (Dam Pattern) disposed at least on the non-light emitting area (Non-Light Emitting Area) of the display panel (300);
an overcoat layer (23) disposed between the color filters (22) and the dam pattern (Dam Pattern); and
a slit pattern located in close proximity to a cutting area (Annotated Fig (8) shared in this OA: 10e, dicing area, [0047]: “… and a dicing area 10e…”) of the non-light emitting area (Non-Light Emitting Area).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
892
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wei does not disclose a slit pattern in close proximity to the cutting area.
Hu teaches a slit pattern (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: Slit Pattern, [0072]: “… The cutting path is a slit left after the laser cutting process. The width of the slit may be equal to the width L3 of the predetermined cutting line CL.”) in close proximity to the cutting area (Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: 21).
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei by using the slit pattern disclosed in Hu to make the display cutting process easier and more precise leading to a more reliable device.
PNG
media_image3.png
689
1088
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Wei teaches further comprising a cutting line (Wei: Annotated Fig (8) shared in this OA: line defining 10e) located at an edge of another side of the display panel, wherein a size of the display panel is adjusted by the cutting line where the display panel to be cut (Fig (12), [0096]: “... As shown in FIG. 12, the dicing lane (shown by the vertical dashed line in the figure) is disposed on the sealing frame 31, and the frame width of the organic light emitting display panel obtained by dicing along the dicing lane is further reduced.”.
Regarding claim 7; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Wei teaches wherein the overcoat layer (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 23) disposed in the non-light emitting area (Non-Light Emitting Area) includes a first pattern and a second pattern disposed on the slit pattern interposed therebetween.
Wei does not teach a first pattern and a second pattern disposed on the slit pattern interposed therebetween.
Hu teaches a first pattern (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: First Pattern) and a second pattern (Second Pattern) disposed on the slit pattern (Slit Pattern) interposed therebetween.
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to construct the first and second patterns around the slip pattern as disclosed in Hu to improve the insulation of the display device against moisture leading to the improvement of the longevity of the device.
Regarding claim 8; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 7.
However, Wei does not teach wherein the slit pattern extends in a direction parallel to a direction of a long side of the cutting area.
Hu teaches wherein the slit pattern (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: Slit Pattern) extends in a direction (Z-direction) parallel to a direction of a long side of the cutting area (the area below CL).
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei by constructing the slit pattern as disclosed in Hu to make the cutting process more efficient leading to a better performing device.
Regarding claim 9; Wie in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 7.
However, Wei does not teach wherein the slit pattern extends in a direction perpendicular to a direction of a moisture invading path.
Hu teaches wherein the slit pattern (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: Slit Pattern) extends in a direction (Y-direction) perpendicular to a direction (Z-direction) of a moisture invading path.
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei by constructing the slit pattern as disclosed in Hu to make the cutting process more efficient leading to a better performing device while protecting it from moisture.
Regarding claim 11; Wei in view of Hu teaches all limitations of the display device of claim 7.
Wei does not teach wherein the slit pattern is filled with the dam pattern.
Hu teaches wherein the slit pattern (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: Slit Pattern) is filled with the dam pattern (Second Pattern).
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei by filling the slit pattern with dam pattern as disclosed in Hu to improve the insulation properties of the light-emitting devices against moisture leading to a more reliable device.
Regarding claim 12; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 7.
Wei teaches further comprising a barrier layer (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 32) disposed between the overcoat layer (23) and the dam pattern (Dam Pattern), wherein the barrier layer (32) fills the slit pattern and has one surface is in contact with the second color filter (22) and another surface is in contact with the dam pattern (Dam Pattern).
Wei does not teach the barrier layer fills the slit pattern.
Hu teaches the barrier layer (Hu: Annotated Fig (10) shared in this OA: 21) fills the slit pattern (Slit Pattern).
Wei and Hu are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skills in the art, to modify Wei by constructing the barrier layer such that it fills the slit pattern such that it improves the insulation of the light emitting device from moisture leading to better device reliability.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu) in further view of Nakatogawa, US 20220357625 A1 (Nakatogawa).
Regarding claim 13; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Wei teaches wherein the display panel includes: a first substrate (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 11) with a white sub-pixel and colored sub-pixels (12) disposed thereon; and a second substrate (21+22+23) positioned to face the first substrate (11) and including the plurality of color filters (22), wherein the overcoat layer (23) includes a slit pattern, and the slit pattern overlaps with the white sub-pixel.
Wei in view of Hu does not teach a white sub-pixel, wherein the overcoat layer includes a slit pattern, and the slit pattern overlaps with the white sub-pixel.
Nakatogawa teaches a white sub-pixel (Nakatogawa: Annotated Fig (23) shared in this OA: W), wherein the overcoat layer (SLI) includes a slit pattern (Slit Pattern), and the slit pattern (Slit Pattern) overlaps with the white sub-pixel (W).
Wei in view of Hu and Nakatogawa are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu by introducing the white pixel structure disclosed in Nakatogawa to improve the resolution of the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
657
967
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14; Wei in view of Wu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
However, Wei in view of Hu does not teach further comprising a first connection line disposed between two adjacent sub-pixels among the plurality of sub-pixels, and a second connection line perpendicular to the first connection line and disposed between two adjacent sub-pixels among the plurality of sub-pixels.
Nakatogawa teaches further comprising a first connection line (Nakatogawa: Fig (21): VL) disposed between two adjacent sub-pixels (OLED1, OLED4) among the plurality of sub-pixels, and a second connection line (SSG) perpendicular to the first connection line (VL) and disposed between two adjacent sub-pixels (OLED1, OLED2) among the plurality of sub-pixels.
Wei in view of Hu and Nakatogawa are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu by constructing the connection lines as disclosed in Nakatogawa to improve the control of the display device leading to a better performing device.
Claims 2and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu) in further view of Jang et al, US 20210202675 A1 (Jang).
Regarding claim 2; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Further, Wei teaches wherein the display panel (Wei: Annotated Fig (6): 300) includes: a first substrate (11) with the plurality of sub-pixels (12) including a first sub-pixel (12), a second sub- pixel (12), a third sub-pixel (12), and a fourth sub-pixel disposed thereon; and a second substrate (21+22+23) facing the first substrate and including the plurality of color filters (22) disposed to respectively correspond to the first to the third sub-pixels (12) except for the fourth sub- pixel, wherein the overcoat layer (23) is located on the plurality of color filters (22) and has a flat surface.
Wei in view of Hu does not teach a fourth sub-pixel.
Jang teaches a fourth sub-pixel (Jang: [0061]: “According to another embodiment, the pixel P can include first to fourth subpixels SP”).
Wei in view of Hu and Jang are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu by using a fourth sub-pixel as disclosed in Jang to improve the resolution of the display and thus produce a better performing device.
Regarding claim 6; Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 2
Further, Wei teaches wherein the overcoat layer (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 23) disposed in the display area covers an exposed surface of the color filter (22) and covers an exposed surface of the second substrate (21+22+23) in an area corresponding to the fourth sub-pixel.
Wei in view of Hu does not teach a fourth sub-pixel.
Jang teaches a fourth sub-pixel (Jang: [0061]: “According to another embodiment, the pixel P can include first to fourth subpixels SP”).
Wei in view of Hu and Jang are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu by using a fourth sub-pixel as disclosed in Jang to improve the resolution of the display and thus produce a better performing device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu) in further view of Kubota et al, US 20240284754 A1 (Kubota).
Regarding claim 5; Wei in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 1.
Wei in view of Hu does not teach wherein the overcoat layer includes a negative-type photoactive compound.
Kubota teaches wherein the overcoat layer (Kubota: Fig (12b): 182b) includes a negative-type photoactive compound ([0211]: “Moreover, for the insulating layer 182b, a photosensitive resin can be used. As the photosensitive resin, a positive photosensitive material or a negative photosensitive material can be used.”).
Wei in view of Hu and Kubota are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu by using a negative photoactive material as disclosed in Kubota to further enhance the insulation of the light emitting elements form moisture and other destructive environments elements leading to a more reliable device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu) in further view of Jang et al, US 20210202675 A1 (Jang) in further view of Urabe et al, US 20030107314 A1 (Urabe).
Regarding claim 3; Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
Further, Wei teaches wherein adjacent color filters (Wei: Annotated Fig (6) shared in this OA: 22) among the plurality of color filters (22) overlap with each other in a boundary area of the plurality of sub-pixels (12) adjacent to each other among the plurality of sub-pixels (12) and have a step, and the overcoat layer (23) is disposed on the plurality of color filters (22) including the step.
However, Wei does not teach the plurality of color filters overlap with each other in a boundary area in a boundary area of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Urabe teaches the plurality of color filters (Urabe: Fig (1): 22R, 22G, 22B) overlap with each other in a boundary area of the plurality of sub-pixels (10R, 10G, 10B).
Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang and Urabe are considered analogous art. This, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu in further view Jang by constructing the color filters to overlap as disclosed in Urabe to improve the color conversion of the display and thus improve the quality of the images produced by the display.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al, US 20220199693 A1 (Wei) in view of Hu et al, US 20220359330 A1 (Hu) in further view of Jang et al, US 20210202675 A1 (Jang) in further view of Noh et al, US 20220209202 A1 (Noh).
Regarding claim 10; Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang teaches all the limitations of the display device of claim 2.
However, Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang does not teach wherein the slit pattern extends through an area corresponding to the second sub-pixel and the fourth sub-pixel adjacent to the second sub- pixel, and wherein the slit pattern does not extend through an area corresponding to the first sub- pixel and the third sub-pixel adjacent to the first sub-pixel.
Noh teaches wherein the slit pattern (Noh: Annotated Fig (3) shared in this OA: Slit Pattern) extends through an area corresponding to the second sub-pixel (120a) and the fourth sub-pixel (120b) adjacent to the second sub- pixel (120a), and wherein the slit pattern (Slit Pattern) does not extend through an area corresponding to the first sub- pixel (120c) and the third sub-pixel (Third Sub-Pixel) adjacent to the first sub-pixel (120c).
Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang and Noh are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Wei in view of Hu in further view of Jang by constructing the slit pattern as disclosed in Noh to improve the insulation of the device against moisture leading to better reliability of the device.
PNG
media_image5.png
676
1165
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Liu et al, CN 217562576 U (Liu); discloses color filters that overlap with one another in the boundary areas of the neighboring sub-pixels.
Kwon et al, KR 20220093875 A (Kwon); discloses 4 sub-pixels including a white sub-pixel along with an overcoat layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights