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
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without travers in reply filed 5/19/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024, 11/23/2024, and 4/1/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonoda (US 20200006702 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sonoda discloses, in FIG. 3c, a display device comprising a “support body” (substrate) 11 comprising a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a plurality of light emitting elements 24 on the first surface, a protection dam 41 on the first surface and adjacent to the edge of the substrate, wherein FIG. 7A shows that the protection dam has an upper portion 43 that has a width that is greater than a maximum width of a lower portion 42.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda (US 20200006702 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20210202686 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sonoda teaches, in FIG. 3c, a display device comprising a “support body” (substrate) 11 comprising a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a plurality of light emitting elements 24 on the first surface, a protection dam 41 on the first surface and adjacent to the edge of the substrate, wherein FIG. 7A shows that the protection dam has an upper portion 43 that has a width that is greater than a maximum width of a lower portion 42.
Sonoda does not teach a first inclined surface between the first side surface and the second surface.
Jeon teaches, in FIG. 17, a “substrate” 200 which has a first side (on which “dam pattern” 105 is disposed), a second side opposite the first side, a “outer surface” (first side surface) OS1B, and a “chamfer” (inclined surface) 200c between the second surface and the first side surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a first inclined surface between the first side surface and the second surface, taught by Jeon, to the display device taught by Sonoda. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “The second chamfer may reduce or minimize the damage of the corner portion of the second substrate 200 caused by a physical impact applied from the outside and may prevent a disconnection of the routing portion 400 caused by the corner portion of the second substrate 200” (Jeon, paragraph 0146).
Regarding claim 2, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7A, that a protection dam such that a first extension line connected a lower end of the upper portion to a lower end of the lower portion, as well as a second extension line connecting the opposite lower end of the upper portion to an opposite lower end of the lower portion forms a reverse tapered shape. See the annotated FIG. 7A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7A, that the upper portion comprises a first tip protruding from the lower portion (see the section of the upper portion which hangs out over the lower portion horizontally).
Regarding claim 4, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7a, an “inorganic layer” (first upper layer) 33 on the protection dam, wherein the first upper layer covers a top surface and a side surface of the protection dam, and the first upper layer comprises a second tip along a shape of the first tip.
Regarding claim 5, Sonoda further discloses, in FIG. 1, a “TFT layer” 12 on the first surface, a “sealing film” (encapsulation layer) 30 on the plurality of light emitting elements 24, in which the TFT layer 12 comprises “organic insulating film” 15, and the encapsulation layer comprises “inorganic layer” 33, which is also the first upper layer. In other words, each of the TFT layer and encapsulation layer comprises at least one of an inorganic or an organic layer, and the first upper layer is one of these layers.
Regarding claim 6, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7A, that the protection dam has a reverse tapered shape, (the upper portion is larger than the lower portion), paragraph 0129 also calls the dam 41 a “reversely tapered eaves body 41.”
Regarding claim 7, Sonoda further teaches 6A, an embodiment of the dam with a reverse trapezoidal shape. Paragraph 0174 further states “ . . . the eaves body 41 has a trapezoidal reversely tapered shape in a cross-sectional view.”
Regarding claim 8, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7A, an “inorganic layer” (first upper layer) on the protection dam, an extension portion on at least one side of the protection dam, where the first upper layer defines a cavity portion between the remaining portion and the extension portion. See annotated FIG. 7A below.
PNG
media_image2.png
633
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7a, that the remaining portion and the extension portion and the extension portion overlap the protection dam in a thickness direction (see the dotted line in annotated FIG. 7A above).
Regarding claim 10, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG, 7A, a “inorganic layer” (second upper layer) 33 disposed on the first upper layer, wherein the second upper layer is disposed on at least a part of the cavity portion defined in the first upper layer.
Regarding claim 11, Sonoda further teaches, in paragraphs 126 “. . . an organic film (not illustrated) that is formed, for example, from a photosensitive resin such as an acrylic resin or a polyimide resin . . . Then, as illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3A, the bank BK formed by the organic film are pattern formed by photolithography or the like” (bank BK is formed by polyimide). Paragraph 130 states “ . . . eaves body 41 may be pattern formed in the same step using the same material as the bank BK.” The examiner notes that the “eves body 41” is the material of the protection dam (see FIG. 7A). Therefore, the protection dam taught by Sonoda contains polyimide resin (polyimide).
Regarding claim 15, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 4, that the protection dam (41) surrounds at least a part of the display area in which the plurality of light emitting elements are disposed.
Regarding claim 17, as explained above, Sonoda teaches a protection dam that is configured between an edge portion and a plurality of light emitting elements. It is inherent that the protection dam will prevent an etchant from moving toward the plurality of light emitting elements from the edge (note that the dam is raised above the layer directly beside it).
Claim(s) 1, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210408508 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20210202686 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches, in FIG. 1A, substrate 100 comprising a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, a plurality of light emitting elements 140 on the first surface , a “second barrier wall” (protection dam) 161’ that is adjacent to an edge of the substrate comprising a “lower portion” 161’l and an upper portion 161’u on the lower portion wherein a width of the upper portion is greater than a maximum width of the lower portion.
Zhang does not teach a first inclined surface between the first side surface and the second surface.
Jeon teaches, in FIG. 17, a “substrate” 200 which has a first side (on which “dam pattern” 105 is disposed), a second side opposite the first side, a “outer surface” (first side surface) OS1B, and a “chamfer” (inclined surface) 200c between the second surface and the first side surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a first inclined surface between the first side surface and the second surface, taught by Jeon, to the display device taught by Zhang. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “The second chamfer may reduce or minimize the damage of the corner portion of the second substrate 200 caused by a physical impact applied from the outside and may prevent a disconnection of the routing portion 400 caused by the corner portion of the second substrate 200” (Jeon, paragraph 0146).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further teaches, in FIG. 2a, that the protection dam surrounds at least a part of the display area (DA) in which the plurality of light emitting elements are disposed.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang further teaches, in FIG. 1A, a “first barrier wall” (crack dam) between the protection dam 161’ and the display area.
Regarding claim 18, as explained above, Zhang and Jeon teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further teaches, in paragraph 0016, a method wherein “Optionally, the method further comprises punching an aperture through the display substrate to form a window region; wherein the window region is substantially surrounded by the first enclosure.” The examiner notes that this corresponds to a though-hole that penetrates the first and second surface, and which would at least comprise a second side surface.
Zhang does not teach a second inclined surface between the second surface and the second side surface.
Jeon teaches, in FIG. 17, a “substrate” 200 which has a first side (on which “dam pattern” 105 is disposed), a second side opposite the first side, a “outer surface” (first side surface) OS1B, and a “chamfer” (inclined surface) 200c between the second surface and the first side surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the through hole taught by Zhang such that it comprises a second inclined surface between the second side surface and the second surface at an edge of the through hole. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because of the durability-improving properties thereof described by Jeon above. Applicant has not disclosed that forming the second incline surface such that it is shorter than the first incline surface provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (see specification paragraphs 0027, 00209, and 00278).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the through-hole of Zhang with the inclined surfaced of Jeon at an edge of the through-hole. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the formation of the second inclined surface with a shorter length than the first inclined surface to be one of several straightforward design variations to increase durability because of the above stated teachings of Jeon. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Also see MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda (US 20200006702 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20210202686 A1) in further view of Park (US 20220123081 A1).
Regarding claim 12, as explained above, Sonoda and Jeon teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not explicitly teach that the protection dam includes silicon nitride (SiNx) as an inorganic material.
Park teaches, in FIG. 4, a display device with a dam DM. Paragraph 0091 states “the dam DM may include at least one of polyimide (PI), silicon nitride (SiN.sub.X) . . .”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Sonoda such that the dam includes silicon nitride (SiNx) as an inorganic material, as taught by Park. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this material is “capable of inhibiting or preventing moisture permeation” (Park, paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 13, as explained above, Sonoda and Jeon teach the limitations of claim 1. They do not teach that the protection dam contains at least one of vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, nickel, titanium, palladium, platinum, silver, gold, aluminum, titanium/tungsten, nickel/chromium, titanium nitride, copper/zeolite, carbon steel, chromium-nickel-molybdenum steel, and a nickel-chromium-iron alloy.
Park teaches, a dam DM (see FIG. 4) and further teaches in paragraph 0091, “the dam DM may include at least one of polyimide (PI), silicon nitride (SiN.sub.X), silicon oxide (SiO.sub.X), silicon oxynitride (SiO.sub.XN.sub.Y), molybdenum (Mo), copper (Cu), aluminum oxide (AlO.sub.X), and titanium oxide (TiO.sub.X).”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the display device taught by Sonoda such that the dam comprises at least one of vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, nickel, titanium, palladium, platinum, silver, gold, aluminum, titanium/tungsten, nickel/chromium, titanium nitride, copper/zeolite, carbon steel, chromium-nickel-molybdenum steel, and a nickel-chromium-iron alloy, as taught by Park. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, these materials are “capable of inhibiting or preventing moisture permeation” (Park, paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 14, the examiner notes that some of the protection dam materials taught by Park are oxides. The oxidized metals therefore form a barrier layer. The examiner notes that while Park does not explicitly disclose that the metals are oxidized by an etchant, the resulting device is equivalent. Further, Park teaches, in 13D, a manufacturing step for forming the protection dam in which the dam is exposed (i.e., it is configured to react with an etchant to be oxidized, even if this step is not performed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Sonoda such that the dam is oxidized to form a barrier layer and such that the protection dam is configured to react with an etchant to be oxidized, as taught by Park. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because this barrier layer is “capable of inhibiting or preventing moisture permeation” (Park, paragraph 0091).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhang (US 20210408508 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20210202686 A1) in further view of Lee (US 20210309035 A1).
Regarding claim 20, as explained above, Zhang and Jeon teach the limitations of claim 18. They do not teach a glass substrate.
Lee teaches, in paragraph 0033: “First, partition walls 110 for forming pixels may be formed in non-pixel portions on the substrate 130. For the substrate 130, a known transparent substrate can be used, such as a glass substrate, a quartz substrate, a plastic substrate, etc. Among these substrate types, the glass substrate may provide advantages in terms of transparency, strength, and weather resistance.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the display device taught by Sonoda such that the substrate is made of glass, as taught by Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in because, for example, glass substrates have advantages in transparency, strength, and weather resistance (as taught by Lee above).
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonoda (US 20200006702 A1) in view of Jeon (US 20210202686 A1) in further view of Yoon (US 20190245160 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sonoda teaches, in FIG. 3c, a display device comprising a “support body” (substrate) 11 comprising a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface facing the first surface, a plurality of light emitting elements 24 on the first surface, a protection dam 41 on the first surface and adjacent to the edge of the substrate, wherein FIG. 7A shows in clearer detail that the protection dam has an upper portion 43 that has a width that is greater than a maximum width of a lower portion 42.
Sonoda does not teach a through hole penetrating the first and second surface.
Yoon teaches, in FIG. 2, a display device comprising an “opening” (through hole) in a substrate 110 which has a first side and a second side opposite the first side as well as a first side surface (at the end of “protruded portion” A2) at the edge of the through hole, and a first inclined surface (“depressed portion” B2, which are “formed along the external circumferential surface of the opening” (paragraph 0065) and is inclined, see paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the device taught by Sonoda such that the substrate defines a through hole with a first side surface and a first inclined surface between the first side surface and the second surface, as taught by Yoon. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to form the hole in order to allow light through for components such as cameras (Yoon, paragraph 0005) and is motivated to form the inclined surface because “[a] chamfer may reduce or minimize the damage of the corner portion of the second substrate 200 caused by a physical impact applied from the outside” (Jeon, paragraph 0146).
Regarding claim 22, Sonoda further teaches, in FIG. 7a, that the protection dam has a reverse tapered shape.
Regarding claim 23, Yoon further teaches, in FIG. 1B, that a “camera sensor” C (which is disposed in the through hole of claim 21, see above) is surrounded by a “display area” DA. The examiner notes that FIG. 3 shows light emitting elements “OLED” which are disposed in the display area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to construct the device taught by Sonoda such that the through-hole is surrounded display area in which light emitting elements are disposed, as taught by Yoon. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because the device taught by Yoon in FIG. 2 is such that “display area DA of the display device in FIG. 1B extends to a periphery of the front side of the display device” instead of being cut off by the need for a camera (or any other component which may be in the through-hole) to be in a dedicated non-display area, increasing the commercial value of the device. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ochi (US 20220190289 A1) – FIG. 9 shows “resin layer” 22e “inclined in a reverse tapered shape” (paragraph 0062).
Okabe (US 20220149121 A1) – FIG, 1 shows hole H surrounded by display area D, FIG. 16 shows “resin layer” 19ga with a reverse tapered shape and tips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights