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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-17, and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kato (US. Pub: 2020/0243611 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) a display device, comprising: a substrate (40) divided into an active area in which a plurality of sub-pixels are defined, and a non-active area (see fig. 6); a plurality of light emitting diodes (6; OLED; [0045]) in the plurality of sub-pixels; a primary protection film (310; [0046]) on the substrate on which the plurality of light emitting diodes (6) are disposed, the primary protection film including a plurality of trenches in its surface (see fig. 6); an organic film (320; [0046]) on the primary protection film (310) along an inner contour shape of the plurality of trenches (200; see fig. 6) through a vapor deposition process; and a secondary protection film (330; [0046]) on the organic film, wherein a lower surface of the secondary protection film (330) includes a plurality of concave portions (334) and convex portions (336) corresponding to the plurality of trenches (see fig. 6), and an upper surface of the secondary protection film (330) includes a plurality of concave portions (334; [0088]) and convex portions (336) aligned with the plurality of concave portions and convex portions of the lower surface (see fig. 6).
Also, the limitation “an organic film on the primary protection film along an inner contour shape of the plurality of trenches through a vapor deposition process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses (in at least figs. 4 and 6) a planarization layer (46) on the substrate, wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes (6) are on the planarization layer.
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses (in at least figs. 4 and 6) a bank (240) disposed on the planarization layer, wherein the bank (240) extends to a part of the non-active area so as to cover a side surface of an edge of the planarization layer (46).
Regarding claim 7, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the plurality of trenches (200) are disposed parallel in one direction.
Regarding claim 8, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the plurality of trenches (200) are disposed in a lattice pattern in one direction and a direction perpendicular to the one direction.
Regarding claim 9, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the primary protection film (310) includes an inorganic film ([0046]), and the plurality of trenches (200) are prepared in a surface of the primary protection film (310) by dry-etching the inorganic film.
Regarding claim 10, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the plurality of trenches (200) are disposed throughout an entirety of the active area (see fig. 6), and the plurality of trenches (200) extend to a part of the non-active area.
The limitation “the plurality of trenches are prepared in a surface of the primary protection film by dry-etching the inorganic film” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the organic film (320) is conformally deposited on the primary protection film (310).
Regarding claim 13, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the organic film (320) is conformally deposited on the primary protection film (310) through an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process.
The limitation “the organic film is conformally deposited on the primary protection film through an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 14, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the organic film (320) extends to a part of the non-active area so as to cover the primary protection film (310).
Regarding claim 15, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the organic film (320) is deposited in an upturned U-shape on an upper surface of the primary protection film (310) and deposited in a U-shape inside a trench from the plurality of trenches (200).
Regarding claim 16, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the secondary protection film (330) is deposited on the organic film (320) along a surface shape of the organic film through an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process.
The limitation “the secondary protection film (330) is deposited on the organic film (320) along a surface shape of the organic film through an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the secondary protection film (330) extends to a part of the non-active area so as to cover the organic film (320).
Regarding claim 20, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the primary protection film (310) on a side surface of a trench of the plurality of trenches (200) has a protrusion, and the protrusion has a rectangular shape, a triangular shape, or a trapezoidal shape in a cross-sectional view of the display device (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) a display device, comprising: a substrate (40) divided into an active area and a non-active area (see fig. 6); a plurality of light emitting diodes (6; [0045]) in the active area; and an encapsulation layer (300) including at least three films (310, 320, 330) laminated on the substrate on which the plurality of light emitting diodes are disposed (see fig. 6), wherein a lowermost layer (310) of the encapsulation layer includes a plurality of trenches (200) in its surface, and the plurality of trenches (200) extend to the non-active area via the active area, and wherein a lower surface of an upper layer (330) of the encapsulation layer includes a plurality of concave portions and convex portions corresponding to the plurality of trenches (see fig. 6), and an upper surface of the upper layer (330) of the encapsulation layer (300) includes a plurality of concave portions and convex portions aligned with the plurality of concave portions and convex portions of the lower surface (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the encapsulation layer (300) includes an intermediate layer (320) deposited on the lowermost layer along an inner contour shape of the plurality of trenches (200).
Regarding claim 23, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the intermediate layer (320) is conformally deposited on the lowermost layer (310) through an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process.
The limitation “the intermediate layer is conformally deposited on the lowermost layer through an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 11, 18-19, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US. Pub: 2020/0243611 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) a protection film (74) on the secondary protection film (330); but is silent about an adhesive interposed between the secondary protection film and the protection film.
However, as noted in at least fig. 6, the protection film (74) is attached to the secondary protection film (330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using any suitable means such as an adhesive to attach the protection film of Kato to the secondary protection film.
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) at least one of a touch electrode (110) or a color filter layer on the secondary protection film (330) or the adhesive.
Regarding claim 6, Kato discloses all the claimed limitations except for a buffer layer on the bank, wherein the primary protection film is on the buffer layer.
However, it is well-known in the art to form a display device comprised of, in part, a buffer layer on the bank, wherein the primary protection film is on the buffer layer as evident by Ju et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0243802 A1~hereinafter “Ju”) of record at least fig. 7, which discloses “a buffer layer (BF2) on the bank (180), wherein the primary protection film (PL1) is on the buffer layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Kato with the buffer layer of Ju in order to protect the organic light-emitting layer against moisture that may penetrate the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Ju discloses (in at least fig. 7) the plurality of trenches extend to an edge of the primary protection film (PL1).
Regarding claim 18, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the organic film (320) is a primary organic film, but is silent about the display device further includes: a secondary organic film deposited on the secondary protection film along an inner contour shape of the secondary protection film through a vapor deposition process; and a tertiary organic film on the secondary organic film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider using a secondary organic film deposited on the secondary protection film along an inner contour shape of the secondary protection film through a vapor deposition process; and a tertiary organic film on the secondary organic film in the device of Ju in order to provide suitable to protection to the organic light emitting layer against moisture. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Also, the limitation “a secondary organic film deposited on the secondary protection film along an inner contour shape of the secondary protection film through a vapor deposition process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the secondary organic film is conformally deposited on the secondary protection film through an initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) process, and the tertiary organic film is deposited on the secondary organic film along a surface shape of the secondary organic film through an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 24, Kato discloses all the claimed limitations except for a thickness of the upper layer of the encapsulation layer is smaller than a thickness of the intermediate layer of the encapsulation layer.
However, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) the encapsulation layer (300) comprises an upper layer (310) and an intermediate layer (320).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through design choice. Applicant has not disclose the recited thickness is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using the thickness of Kato.
Regarding claim 25, Kato discloses all the claimed limitations except for a thickness of the secondary protection film is smaller than a thickness of the organic film.
However, Kato discloses (in at least fig. 6) a secondary protection film (330) and an organic film (320).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through design choice. Applicant has not disclose the recited thickness is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using the thickness of Kato.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights