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
The Amendment filed August 21, 2026 has been entered. Applicant' s amendments to the Specification have overcome objection to the title set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 21, 2026.
Applicant' s amendment to claim 10 has been considered, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 and 15-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-15 of Remarks, filed August 21,2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and of claims 4-13 and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered in view of the Amendment and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different embodiments and combinations of the previously cited prior art in combination with newly identified prior art.
Specifically, Applicant’s argument with respect to the Amended claim 1 that the embodiment of Liao cited in the rejection of claim 1 does not disclose that sensing wires 114 (the electrode) are electrically floating is persuasive. Jung also does not disclose the electrode of the Amended claim 15. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejections are withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the sensing wires of Liao do not extend in a loop around a periphery of an active area. Applicant cites Fig 5 in the argument that the sensing wires 114 do not extend in a loop around a periphery of the active area, but the Examiner understands Fig 5, and Fig 1, to show the sensing wires 114 in the non-active area 100b, where 100b itself loops around a periphery of active area 100a. The Examiner believes it would be obvious to have configured the non-transparent dummy wires of an alternate embodiment, which are electrically floating, in the same manner. Please see the claim rejections below for a detailed explanation, where claims 1 and 15 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over combinations including the alternate embodiment of Liao.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims that the additional references do not overcome the deficiencies of Liao in regard to the electrode of Amended claims 1 and 15 are moot in view of the withdrawal of the prior rejections of independent claims 1 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (104; Figs 2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) including an active area (100a; Figs 1,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) and a non-active area (100b; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) adjacent to the active area;
an encapsulation substrate (102; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) disposed over the substrate;
a dam (106; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]; where 106 forms a loop surrounding 108 {Fig 1; ¶ [0019]}) disposed in the non-active area between the substrate and the encapsulation substrate; and
an electrode (non-transparent dummy electrode {not shown}; ¶ [0023]) disposed on a first surface of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate (on 102 {¶ [0023]}, and overlapping the dam (¶ [0023]),
wherein the electrode is electrically floating (the non-transparent dummy electrode is electrically insulated from sensing wires 114, which do not cover the dam 106; the non-transparent dummy electrode is used for reflection purposes in place of sensing wires 114 because sensing wires 114 are not positioned to overlap the dam 106 in this embodiment; ¶ [0023]).
Liao does not disclose that the electrode (dummy electrode) extends in a loop around a periphery of the active area. However, in another embodiment (Fig 1) “ sensing wires 114 are disposed along the peripheral region 100b at at least one side of the display region 100a and over the sealing adhesive layer 106” (¶ [0019]), and in the embodiment of Fig 1, wires 114 do extend in a loop around the periphery of the active area, around all four sides of 108 as shown in Fig 1, not on only one side of the display region. Liao explains that it is advantageous for the wires 114 to overlap the (dam) layer 106 to provide reflection for curing the dam 106. Therefore, in the ¶ [0023] embodiment, wherein the sensing wires 114 do not cover the dam 106, when Liao discloses that the non-transparent dummy electrode (the electrode applied to claim 1) “is disposed on the first substrate 102 at at least one side of the touch sensing electrode array 112 and disposed overlapping the sealing adhesive layer 106, to reflect the laser light not irradiated to the sensing wires 114” (¶ [0023]), it would have been obvious to a person to have formed the non-transparent dummy electrode extending in a loop around a periphery of the active area, in the same manner as for the Fig 1 embodiment where sensing wires 114 covered the dam 106 to provide reflection thereto; that is, it would have been obvious that the non-transparent dummy wires are functional substitute for the sensing wires 114 of Fig 1, and may be disposed in the same manner. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase a curing efficiency of dam 106 (¶ [0023]), in the same manner as disclosed for the Fig 1 embodiment.
Regarding claim 2, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first surface of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate is a surface that faces towards the dam. However, this configuration would have been obvious, since the Liao discloses in Fig 5 that a suitable placement for the sensing wires 114 faces towards the dam (¶ [0028]). As explained under claim 1, with the non-transparent dummy wires substituting for the sensing wires 114 to provide reflection to the dam 106, it would have been obvious to place the electrode of claim 1 as shown for 114 in Fig 5.
Regarding claim 3, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first surface of the encapsulation substrate is a surface that faces away from the dam. However, this configuration would have been obvious, since the Liao discloses in Fig 2 that a suitable placement for the sensing wires 114 faces away from the dam (¶ [0021]). As explained under claim 1, with the non-transparent dummy wires substituting for the sensing wires 114 to provide reflection to the dam 106, it would have been obvious to place the electrode of claim 1 as shown for 114 in Fig 2.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 4, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: at least one flexible film disposed on one side of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a similar display device (Figs 1,4,5,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) comprising: at least one flexible film disposed on one side of the substrate (a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) may be in direct contact with pad electrode 470; ¶ [0073,0076-77]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include at least one flexible film disposed on one side of the substrate of Liao. One may have been motivated to do this in order to connect the display device to an external device which may provide a signal to the display device (Jung; ¶ [0076-77]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar display devices of Liao and Jung in the similar endeavors, and because use of such flexible films for external connection is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Liao in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein a width of the non-active area (Liao; 100b; Fig 1) disposed on the one side of the substrate on which the flexible film is disposed is different from a width of the non-active area disposed on all of other sides of the substrate (Liao; as shown in Fig 1, 102b is wider on a lower side, comprising 120, that on left, right, and upper sides).
Regarding claim 6, Liao in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein the width of the non-active area disposed on the one side (Liao; 102b at the lower side comprising 120; Fig 1) of the substrate is greater than the width of the non-active area disposed on all of the other sides of the substrate (as applied to claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, Liao in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein a side surface of the dam disposed on all of the other sides of the substrate is disposed on a same plane as a side surface of the substrate and a side surface of the encapsulation substrate.
However, Jung discloses a dam (390; Fig 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) having a side surface disposed on three of four sides of a substrate on a same plane as a side surface of the substrate (110; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]) and a side surface of an encapsulation substrate (410; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the dam of claim 5 in the same manner. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce an unutilized (periphery) space of the display device by cutting along the peripheral edge (Jung; ¶ [0095,0074]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar display devices of Liao and Jung in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 13, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a side surface of the dam is coplanar with a side surface of the substrate and a side surface of the encapsulation substrate, and wherein a side surface of the electrode is exposed at a side of the display device where the side surface of the dam, the side surface of the substrate, and the side surface of the encapsulation substrate are coplanar.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a similar display device (Figs 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) comprising a dam (390; Fig 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) disposed in a non-active area (22; Figs 1,7B; ¶ [0064]) at a periphery of an active area (10; Figs 1,7B; ¶ [0064]), wherein a side surface of the dam is coplanar with a side surface of a substrate (110; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]) and a side surface of the encapsulation substrate (410; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]), wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the coplanarity of side surfaces was due to portions exposing the side surfaces being cut or removed (Jung; ¶ [0074]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the dam of Jung with the display device of Liao, by cutting or removing portions which expose the side surfaces. One would have been motivated to reduce an unutilized space of the display device (Jung; ¶ [0074]), and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures of the substrate, dam, and encapsulation substrate in the similar endeavors.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce an unutilized (periphery) space of the display device by cutting along the peripheral edge (Jung; ¶ [0095,0074]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar display devices of Liao and Jung in the similar endeavors.
Liao in view of Jung does not disclose wherein a side surface of the electrode is exposed at a side of the display device where the side surface of the dam, the side surface of the substrate, and the side surface of the encapsulation substrate are coplanar; however, as applied to claim 1, the electrode overlaps the dam (Liao). It would have then been obvious for a portion of the electrode overlapping the dam to be cut or removed along with portions of the substrate, the encapsulation substrate, and the dam to form the coplanar side surfaces, exposing a side surface of the electrode where the electrode was cut.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung), and further in view of Jeong; Chang-Yong et al. (US 2014/0312322; hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 7, Liao in view of Jung discloses the display device of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein a width of the dam disposed on the one side of the substrate is greater than a width of the dam disposed on all of the other sides of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeong discloses a display device comprising a dam (15’; Figs 4-5; ¶ [0040-46]) wherein a width of the dam disposed on the one side of the substrate is greater than a width of the dam disposed on all of the other sides of the substrate (width PA of the lower side 11 {comprising 11a + 13} of the dam 15’ is larger than a width L of each of the other sides 11b,11c,11d of the dam; Fig. 4; ¶ [0045]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the wider lower portion of the dam of Jeong, with the display device of claim 5. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent a rupturing of the dam in an area where connection wires are concentrated (Jeong; ¶ [0044-45, 0058-59]; Liao also having a wire concentration in the same area, for example, wire 118 {Fig 1; or in an alternate embodiment Fig 6 (¶ [0029])}). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar devices and structures in the similar endeavors of Jeong and Liao.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Yu; Donghui (US 10388908; hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 9, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the dam includes: a first dam disposed to surround the active area; and a second dam disposed to surround the first dam.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses a display device comprising a dam, including:
a first dam (41; Figs 1-2; Col 3, lines 11-30) disposed to surround an active area (comprising display component 3; Fig 1; Col 3, lines 11-30) and
a second dam (42; Figs 1-2; Col 3, lines 11-30) disposed to surround the first dam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the dam configuration of Yu comprising a first dam and a second dam with the display device of Liao. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve a moisture barrier performance of the display device (Yu; Col 5; lines 18-48). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structure in the similar display devices of Yu and Liao.
Regarding claim 11, Liao in view of Yu discloses the display device of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the electrode (Liao; non-transparent dummy electrode) includes: a first electrode disposed to overlap the first dam; and a second electrode disposed to overlap the second dam; however, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Since, as applied to claim 1, the purpose of the non-transparent dummy electrode of Liao is to provide a reflection to increase curing efficiency of the dam, it would have been obvious to similarly provide non-transparent dummy electrodes to overlap each of two dams according to claim 11, in order to increase a curing efficiency for both dams. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the formation of a first and second dam is a routine matter of patterning an electrode layer known in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Yu; Donghui (US 10388908; hereinafter Yu) and further in view of (Cho; Dong UK; KR-20180033045-A; hereinafter Cho045).
Regarding claim 10, Liao in view of Yu discloses the display device of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the first dam includes a material having adhesion higher than that of a material constituting the second dam, and wherein the material constituting the second dam has a moisture permeability lower than that of the material included in the first dam.
However, an inverse relationship is known in the art between adhesion and moisture penetration (see Cho045; Fig 8; ¶ [0047-50]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured one of the two dams of claim 9 to have a higher adhesion and the other of the two dams to have lower moisture permeability such that the two dams combined would provide protection against moisture penetration. Regarding whether the first or second dam has the higher adhesion and which has the lower permeability, there are a finite number of combinations and it would have been at least obvious to try each as part of routine optimization in consideration of the known problem in the art of how best to prevent moisture penetration. In this regard, a prima facie case of obviousness is considered met. See MPEP 2143.I.E.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Yu; Donghui (US 10388908; hereinafter Yu) and further in view of Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 12, Liao in view of Yu discloses the display device of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein a side surface of the second dam is disposed on a same plane as a side surface of the substrate and a side surface of the encapsulation substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a similar display device (Figs 1,4,5,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) comprising a dam (390; Fig 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) having a side surface disposed on a same plane as a side surface of a substrate (110; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]) and a side surface of an encapsulation substrate (410; Fig 7B; ¶ [0095]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the outmost dam (the second dam) of claim 9 in the same manner. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce an unutilized (periphery) space of the display device by cutting along the peripheral edge (Jung; ¶ [0095,0074]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar display devices of Liao, Yu and Jung in the similar endeavors.
Claims 15-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung) and Kim; Kyungman et al. (US 2015/0028307; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Liao discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (104; Figs 2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) including an active area (100a; Figs 1,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) and a non-active area (100b; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) adjacent to the active area;
an encapsulation substrate (102; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) disposed over the substrate;
a dam (106; Figs 1,2,5; ¶ [0019, 0028]; where 106 forms a loop surrounding 108 {Fig 1; ¶ [0019]}) disposed in the non-active area at a periphery of the active area; and
an electrode (non-transparent dummy electrode {not shown}; ¶ [0023]) disposed on the encapsulation substrate or the substrate (on 102 {¶ [0023]}, and overlapping the dam (¶ [0023]),
wherein the electrode is electrically floating (the non-transparent dummy electrode is electrically insulated from sensing wires 114, which do not cover the dam 106; the non-transparent dummy electrode is used for reflection purposes in place of sensing wires 114 because sensing wires 114 are not positioned to overlap the dam 106 in this embodiment; ¶ [0023]), and
wherein the dam includes a first surface facing towards the active area (side of 106 facing 100a; Fig 2 or 5), and a second surface facing away from the active area (side of 106 facing away from 100a; Fig 2 or 5).
Liao does not disclose that the electrode (dummy electrode) extends in a loop around a periphery of the active area. However, in another embodiment (Fig 1) “ sensing wires 114 are disposed along the peripheral region 100b at at least one side of the display region 100a and over the sealing adhesive layer 106” (¶ [0019]), and in the embodiment of Fig 1, wires 114 do extend in a loop around the periphery of the active area, around all four sides of 108 as shown in Fig 1, not on only one side of the display region. Liao explains that it is advantageous for the wires 114 to overlap the (dam) layer 106 to provide reflection for curing the dam 106. Therefore, in the ¶ [0023] embodiment, wherein the sensing wires 114 do not cover the dam 106, when Liao discloses that the non-transparent dummy electrode (the electrode applied to claim 1) “is disposed on the first substrate 102 at at least one side of the touch sensing electrode array 112 and disposed overlapping the sealing adhesive layer 106, to reflect the laser light not irradiated to the sensing wires 114” (¶ [0023]), it would have been obvious to a person to have formed the non-transparent dummy electrode extending in a loop around a periphery of the active area, in the same manner as for the Fig 1 embodiment where sensing wires 114 covered the dam 106 to provide reflection thereto; that is, it would have been obvious that the non-transparent dummy wires are functional substitute for the sensing wires 114 of Fig 1, and may be disposed in the same manner. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase a curing efficiency of dam 106 (¶ [0023]), in the same manner as disclosed for the Fig 1 embodiment.
Liao also does not disclose wherein the first surface and the second surface are not parallel to each other (as shown in Fig 7B; 390 has at least one trapezoidal cross section; ¶ [0098]).
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a similar display device (Figs 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) comprising a dam (390; Fig 2,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) disposed in a non-active area (22; Figs 1,7B; ¶ [0064]) at a periphery of an active area (10; Figs 1,7B; ¶ [0064]), wherein the dam includes a first surface facing towards the active area, and a second surface facing away from the active area, and wherein the first surface and the second surface are not parallel to each other (as shown in Fig 7B; 390 has at least one trapezoidal cross section; ¶ [0098]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the shape of the dam of Jung with the display device of Liao. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce an unutilized (periphery) space of the display device by cutting along the peripheral edge (Jung; ¶ [0095,0074]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar display devices of Liao and Jung in the similar endeavors.
Nether Liao nor Jung disclose an adhesive film disposed between the substrate and the encapsulation substrate; the first surface facing towards the adhesive film, and the second surface facing away from the adhesive film.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses a similar display device comprising a substrate (BPL; Fig 4; ¶ [0025-26]), an encapsulation substrate (ENG; Fig 4; ¶ [0025-26]), a dam (DAM; Fig 4; ¶ [0025-30]) disposed in a non-active area (BZ; Fig 4; ¶ [0030]), and an adhesive film (ADH; Fig 4; ¶ [0025-29]) disposed between the substrate and the encapsulation substrate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the adhesive film of Kim with the display device of Liao in view of Jung, such the first surface of the dam faces towards the adhesive film, and the second surface of the dam faces away from the adhesive film. One would have been motivated to do this in order to take advantage of the benefits disclosed by Kim (¶ [0015 {008-11}}) obtained by the structure utilizing both an adhesive film in the active area and a dam in the non-active area, where (1) the active area adhesive film is a transparent adhesive film free from moisture absorption filler used attach the encapsulation substrate to the substrate (Kim; ¶ [0029]) and (2) the dam in the non-active area includes a moisture absorption filler, thereby limiting moisture penetration into the pixel array while enabling the active area to avoid light scattering from the adhesive film which is free from moisture absorption filler. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures of Kim, Jung and Kim in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 16, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 15, wherein the second surface of the dam (Jung; the second surface of 390 facing away from the active area 10/{adhesive film, as applied to claim 15}); Fig 7B) is coplanar with a side surface of the substrate of and a side surface of the encapsulation substrate (Jung; 110; Fig 7B; outermost surface of 390 coplanar with 410,110; ¶ [0095]; as applied to claim 15).
Liao in view of Jung and Kim does not disclose wherein a side surface of the electrode is exposed at a side of the display device where the second surface of the dam, the side surface of the substrate, and the side surface of the encapsulation substrate are coplanar; however, as applied to claim 15, the electrode overlaps the dam (Liao) and it would have been obvious the reason for the coplanarity is that the portions exposing the side surfaces were cut or removed (Jung; ¶ [0074]). It would have then been obvious for a portion of the electrode overlapping the dam to be cut or removed along with portions of the substrate, the encapsulation substrate, and the dam to form the side surfaces of claim 16, exposing a side surface of the electrode where the electrode was cut.
Regarding claim 17, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 15, wherein a first slope of the first surface of the dam and a second slope of the second surface of the dam are different in a cross sectional view (Jung; as shown in Fig 7B; dam 390 has a trapezoidal cross section; ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 18, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 17, wherein the first slope of the first surface (Jung; facing towards active area 10; Fig 7B) has a non- vertical slope and the second slope of the second surface (Jung; facing away from active area 10; Fig 7B) has a vertical slope in the cross sectional view (Jung; as shown in Fig 7B).
Regarding claim 19, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 17, wherein the first slope of the first surface (Jung; facing towards active area 10; Fig 7B) is constant in the cross sectional view (Jung; the first slope of the surface of 390 facing towards the active area 10 is a straight line, as shown in Fig 7B).
Regarding claim 22, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 15, wherein a width of the dam in a cross sectional view varies in a thickness direction of the dam (Jung; as shown in Fig 7B, a width of an upper side of dam 390 is less than a width of a lower side; ¶ [0098]).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) in view of Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung) and Kim; Kyungman et al. (US 2015/0028307; hereinafter Kim) and further in view of Cho; Dong-Uk (US 2018/0342655; hereinafter Cho665).
Regarding claim 20, Liao in view of Jung and Kim discloses the display device of claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the first slope of the first surface is varying in the cross sectional view.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho665 discloses a similar display device comprising a substrate (11; Fig 1; ¶ [0031]), an encapsulation substrate (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0031]), and a dam (16; Fig 1; ¶ [0031-32]) disposed in a non-active area (dam 16 surround display region; ¶ [0050]), wherein a first slope of a first surface (a surface of 16 facing emitting diode 13; Fig 1) is varying in the cross sectional view (the surface is curved, having a concave shape, as shown in Fig 1; ¶ [0076]).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the dam of Cho665 with the display device of Liao in view of Jung and Kim. One may have been motivated to do this in order to take advantage of the plate shaped filler 18 comprising the dam 16 of Cho665 (¶ [0029]) in order to minimize a width of the bezel area. Further, in combination with Liao in view of Jung and Kim, the bezel area /non-display area may be further minimized by cutting the outer peripheral region as disclosed by Jung (Jung; ¶ [0095]), resulting in a first slope of the first surface of the dam (having a concave shape per Cho665) and a second slope of the second surface of the dam (having a vertical slope in cross section, according to the cutting of Jung; Fig 7B) being different in a cross sectional view. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar structures of Liao, Jung, Kim, and Cho665 in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 21, Liao in view of Jung and Kim and further in view of Cho665 discloses the display device of claim 20, wherein the first surface is one of concave or convex in the cross sectional view (concave, as applied to claim 20.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
