CTNF 18/416,179 CTNF 78611 DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8, and cancellation of claims 9-14 in the reply filed on 05/09/2016 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0274770 . Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses (Fig. 5; abstract, and claim 1 of Yang’s): a display device including an active area and a peripheral area adjacent to the active area, comprising: a base layer, a backplane structure including a backplane on the base layer, and outer via layer (OVIA) on the backplane layer, and an outer protective layer (the passivation layer OPVX) on the outer via layer, wherein the outer protective layer includes a first outer protective layer (OPVX1) having holes BH exposing the outer via layer in the active area, and a second outer protective layer (OPVX2) having a plurality of trenches recessed toward the outer via layer without exposing the outer via layer ([0110], it doesn’t expose OPVX1) in the peripheral area (Figs. 5-6). Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses wherein the second outer protective layer (the passivation layer OPVX2) over laps the peripheral area and the active area (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the peripheral area is formed along an edge of the active area (Figs. 1-5). Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses wherein each of the plurality of trenches surrounds at least a portion of the active area (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses wherein the display includes a second backplane structure on the base layer including a second backplane layer, a lower via layer, lower protective layer (LBPL) on the lower via layer, wherein the base layer is between the first backplane and second backplane structure, and wherein the lower protective layer includes a first lower protective layer having holes exposing the lower via layer in the active area, and a second lower protective layer including trenches recessed toward the lower via layer without exposing the lower via layer in the peripheral area ([0015]-0016]-[0092]-[0096]). Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses wherein the outer protective layer and the lower protective layer include an inorganic material ([0066]), and Wherein the outer via layer and the lower via layer include an organic material ([0087]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0274770 . Regarding claims 5-6, Yang fails to disclose the active area extends in a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction, and wherein each of the plurality of trenches includes a first slit extending in the first direction, a second slit extending in the second direction, and a third slit connecting the first and second slits and having an L shape, or wherein each of the trenches includes first grooves arranged in the first direction and second grooves arranged in the second direction crossing the first direction. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, shapes etc. , would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, shapes etc. , or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/416,179 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/416,179 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/416,179 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/416,179 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/416,179 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights