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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the second dam has a moisture permeability higher than the material included in the first dam”. The Examiner believe this limitation is represented by 680a (first dam) and 680b (second dam) of Fig 7, and corresponding description which says {680b} “can be formed of a material that has moisture permeation prevention properties higher than those of the first dam 680a” (emphasis added; ¶ [0110, 0120]. Higher moisture permeation prevention properties correspond to lower moisture permeability, which is the opposite of the claim language. The Examiner does not find indication that there are multiple embodiments in regards to which of the first or second dams has higher moisture permeability, and is confused as to which is intended because the claim does not appear to agree with the specification. For this reason, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The claim has not been examined for prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (104; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) including an active area (100a; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) and a non-active area (100b; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) adjacent to the active area;
an encapsulation substrate (102; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) disposed over the substrate;
a dam (106; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) disposed in the non-active area between the substrate and the encapsulation substrate; and
an electrode (114; Fig 5; ¶ [0019, 0028]) disposed on a first surface (lower surface of 102; Fig 5) of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate, and overlapping the dam.
Regarding claim 2, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the first surface of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate is a surface that faces towards the dam (as applied to claim 1, and shown in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 14, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the electrode (114; Figs 1, 5) loops around a periphery of the active area (100a; Figs 1,5; as shown in Fig 1).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Liao; Po-Sheng et al. (US 2017/0250228; hereinafter Liao) (alternate embodiment).
Regarding claim 1 (alternate embodiment, as shown in Fig 2 rather than Fig 5), Liao discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (104; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) including an active area (100a; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) and a non-active area (100b; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) adjacent to the active area;
an encapsulation substrate (102; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed over the substrate;
a dam (106; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed in the non-active area between the substrate and the encapsulation substrate; and
an electrode (one of 114; Fig 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed on a first surface (upper surface of 102; Fig 2) of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate, and overlapping the dam.
Regarding claim 3, Liao discloses the display device of claim 1 (alternate embodiment), wherein the first surface of the encapsulation substrate or the substrate is a surface that faces away from the dam (as applied to claim 1, and shown in Fig 2).
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 4-6, and 8 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.
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 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, 11 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 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; 114; Fig 5) 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 114 comprises a plurality of electrodes (wires; 114; Fig 1; ¶ [0019]) distributed across at least a portion of the non-active area, and since Liao discloses as an advantage that the plurality of wires 114 overlap the dam 106 which enables a reduction of peripheral region width (Liao; ¶ [0026]) and serves to increase curing efficiency of the dam 106, it would have been obvious for at least one wire of the plurality of wires to overlap the first dam, and at least one wire overlap the second dam, in order to maintain the inventive concept of Liao when combining the structure including a second dam of Yu.
Regarding claim 13, Liao in view of Yu discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is exposed on one side of the substrate. (As shown in Fig 2, the plurality of wires comprising 114 is exposed on an upper side of 102 (which is also on one side of 106).
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 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung) in view of Kim; Kyungman et al. (US 2015/0028307; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Jung discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (110; Figs 5,7B; ¶ [0078-79]) including an active area (10; Fig 1; ¶ [0064]) and a non-active area (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0064]) adjacent the active area;
an encapsulation substrate (410; Figs 5,7B; ¶ [0078-79]) disposed over the substrate; and
a dam (390; Fig 5,7B; ¶ [0078-79,0095-98]) disposed in the non-active area at a periphery of the active area, 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]).
Jung does not 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 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 Jung (¶ [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 (Jung; ¶ [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 Jung and Kim in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of 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 an edge of the encapsulation substrate (Jung; 410; Fig 7B) and an edge of the substrate (Jung; 110; Fig 7B; outermost surface of 390 coplanar with 410,110; ¶ [0095])).
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of 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, Jung in view of 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, Jung in view of 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, Jung in view of 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]).
Regarding claim 23, Jung in view of Kim discloses the display device of claim 15, further comprising an electrode (Jung; 470,471; Figs 2,5; ¶ [0071]) disposed on the encapsulation substrate or the substrate (Jung; 110; Fig 5)
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung; Haegoo et al. (US 2020/0176707; hereinafter Jung) in view of Kim; Kyungman et al. (US 2015/0028307; hereinafter Kim) and further in view of Cho; Dong-Uk (US 2018/0342655; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of 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, Cho 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 Cho with the display device of Jung in view of 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 Cho ¶ [0029]) in order to minimize a width of the bezel area. Further, in combination with Jung in view of 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 Cho) 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 Jung, Kim, and Cho in the similar endeavors.
Regarding claim 21, Jung in view of Kim and further in view of Cho 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim; Hoon (US 2012/0112212; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a dam, a getter, and a sealant.
Shimatsu; Tomohiko (US 2022/0376206; the prior art discloses a display device comprising a first dam surrounding a filler, and a second dam surrounding the first dam.
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
Prosecution Insights