CTNF 18/443,202 CTNF 89654 DETAILED ACTION This application, 18/443202, attorney docket 30257-58064/US, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This application is assigned to LG display Co., Ltd., claims foreign priority to Korean application 10-2023-0026957, filed 02/28/2023. Claims 1-22 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. 2021/0408109, here called Jang109) in view of Jang et al .(U.S. 2021/0202675, here called Jang675.) As for claim 1, Jang109 teaches in figures 2, 3 and 5, a display device, comprising: a substrate (100) including an active area (DA) in which a plurality of sub pixels (PX) are disposed and a non-active area (NDA) that encloses the active area; a plurality of transistors (TFT [0074]) in each of the plurality of sub pixels; a first passivation layer (PAS1 [0073]) that covers the plurality of transistors, a first planarization layer (OC1) [0073]) that covers the first passivation layer; a second passivation layer (PAS2., that covers the first planarization layer, an adhesive layer (IL2, [0160) on the second passivation layer; a plurality of light emitting diodes (ED [0083]) on the adhesive layer; a protection layer (CAP1) on the adhesive layer and the plurality of light emitting diodes; and a third passivation layer (PAS3) that covers the protection layer, Jang109 does not teach that the passivation layers including an inorganic material; However, Jang675 teaches using a SiOx OR SiN for passivation layers (Jang675 [0129]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use inorganic oxide or nitride as a passivation layer taught by Jang675 in the device of Jang109 because the materials are dense and hard and the deposition process is well understood by one skilled in the art. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. As for claim 10, Jang109 in view of Jang675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 1, and in the combination, Jang109 teaches a bank (BK1) including a portion (BNK2) that encloses the plurality of light emitting diodes and the portion of the bank is between the adhesive layer and the protection layer, wherein the bank includes a black material. (Jang109, [0094]). As for claim 11, Jang109 in view of Jang675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 10, wherein an end of the bank is inset from an end of the protection layer in the non-active area. (shown in figure 3 of Jang109). As for claim 13 , Jang109 in view of Jang675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 1, and Jang109 teaches an optical film (cover 30 [0204] - it is inherent that it be transparent, so it is optical) that covers an upper portion of the third passivation layer and an upper portion of the substrate in its entirety; and an adhering unit (20) between the third passivation layer and the optical film (coupling member adheres adjoining display devices [0201]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan109 in view of Jang675 in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2018/0097034) . As for claim 2, Jang109 in view of Jang 675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach an end of the protection layer is in the non-active area. However, Lee teaches an end of the protection layer (300) is in the non-active area. ([0052]) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application extend the protection layer into the peripheral area to seal the edges of the active area from contamination. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. As for claim 3 , Jang109 in view of Jang675 and Lee makes obvious the display device according to claim 2, and in the combination, Lee makes obvious the third passivation layer is in the active area and a part of the non-active area that extends from the active area. (Lee [0052]) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to extend all the protective layers into the non-active area to prevent seams or steps in the active area that increase the chance of cracking. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. As for claim 4 , Jang109 in view of Jang675 make obvious the display device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the third passivation layer covers an end of the protection layer. However, Lee teaches an end of the passivation layer (620) is in the non-active area. (Lee [0052]) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application extend the passivation layer into the peripheral area to seal the edges of the active area from contamination. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan109 in view of Jang675 in further view of Shi et al (U.S. 2023/0013848) . As for claim 14 , Jang109 in view of Jang675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the active area further includes a plurality of gate driving areas that extend from the plurality of sub pixels, the plurality of gate driving areas including a gate driver. However, Shi teaches in figure 1 and 2, an active area (A2) further includes a plurality of gate driving areas (200) that extend from the plurality of sub pixels, the plurality of gate driving areas including a gate driver (T1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application include gate drivers in the circuit to control power to the pixel. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. As for claim 15, Jang109 in view of Jang675 and Shi makes obvious the display device according to claim 14, and in the combination, She teaches that active layers of a plurality of transistors disposed in the plurality of sub pixels and active layers of a plurality of transistors disposed in the gate driver include oxide semiconductor, amorphous silicon, or polysilicon. (Oxide s/c Shi [0057]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use oxide semiconductor transistors in a display because the higher bandgap and higher e-mobility that allows a smaller footprint. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success. As for claim 16 , Jang109 in view of Jang675 and Shi makes obvious the display device according to claim 15, and in the suggested combination, Shi teaches that the plurality of transistors in the gate driver include active layers having different materials.(inherent in Oxide semiconductors which require buffer layer and MOS layer as well as dielectrics.) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As for claim 5, The prior art does not teach or make obvious a plurality of pad electrodes on a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate in the non-active area, the plurality of pad electrodes configured to transmit a signal to the plurality of sub pixels with an inorganic insulating layer between the plurality of pad electrodes and the top surface of the substrate and wherein an end of the third passivation layer overlaps an end of the inorganic insulating layer between the plurality of pad electrodes. Claims 6-9 depend from claim 8 and include the same novel limitation. As for claim 12 Jang109 in view of Jang675 makes obvious the display device according to claim 10, and Jang109 teaches a second planarization layer (OC2) between the adhesive layer and the bank in the active area; and a third planarization layer (OC3) on the second planarization layer, but the prior art does not teach or make obvious the second planarization layer is in contact with a part of a side surface of a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes and the third planarization layer covers a top of the light emitting diode in the active ar ea. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 17-22 are allowed. As for claim 17, The prior art does not teach or make obvious the display device of claim 17 that includes an organic protection layer on the micro light emitting diode in the active area and an inorganic passivation layer on the protection layer in the active area that extending to the non-active area, wherein the passivation layer covers an end of the protection layer in the non-active area. Claims 18-22 depend from claim 17 and include the same novel set of limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time. 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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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. /JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 2 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 3 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 4 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 5 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 6 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 7 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 8 Art Unit: 2893 Application/Control Number: 18/443,202 Page 9 Art Unit: 2893
Prosecution Insights