Detailed Action
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
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)(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 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20230371318 to Choi et al. (Choi).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches in Fig. 20 at least, a display device comprising:
a substrate 100 having a plurality of pixel areas comprising a first pixel area (left most PPXAR3), a second pixel area (Adjacent PPXAR3) offset from the first pixel area, a third pixel area (center PPXAR1) offset from the second pixel area, and a fourth pixel area (Left most PPXAR2) offset from the third pixel area, and having a first sub valley area between the first pixel area and the second pixel area, a second sub valley area between the third pixel area and the fourth pixel area, and a main valley area between the second pixel area and the third pixel area (regions under those pixels define a sub valley area corresponding to each);
an inorganic insulating layer IIL1 on the substrate and defining a first groove PPSL3, a third groove PPSL2, and a second groove PPSL1 respectively overlapping the first sub valley area, the second sub valley area, and the main valley area, a depth of the second groove being different from a depth of the first groove (see Fig. 20; PPSL1 deeper than others); and
an organic insulating layer IIL2 on the inorganic insulating layer and filling the first groove, the second groove and the third groove.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the inorganic insulating layer comprises a barrier layer 110, a buffer layer 111 on the barrier layer, a gate insulating layer 113 on the buffer layer, a first interlayer insulating layer 115 on the gate insulating layer, and a second interlayer insulating layer 117 on the first interlayer insulating layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the first groove and the third groove penetrate the second interlayer insulating layer, and wherein the second groove penetrates the second interlayer insulating layer, the first interlayer insulating layer, and the gate insulating layer (see Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the second groove further penetrates the buffer layer (see Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second groove is to surround at least a portion of the plurality of pixel areas [0025].
Regarding Claim 10, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein each of the inorganic insulating layer and the organic insulating layer is continuously formed over the plurality of pixel areas (see Fig. 20).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Choi.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that a width of the second groove is greater than a width of the first groove and a width of the third groove.
However, Choi teaches that the widths of the trenches directly affect the flexibility of the final product [0134] and are therefore result effective variables that may be optimized by the person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Claims 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Choi in view of U.S. Pat Pub. No. 20200303479 to Kim et al. (Kim).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi teaches a display device comprising:
a substrate having a plurality of pixel areas comprising a first pixel area, a second pixel area offset from the first pixel area, a third pixel area offset from the second pixel area and a fourth pixel area offset from the third pixel area, and having a first sub valley area between the first pixel area and the second pixel area, a second sub valley area between the third pixel area and the fourth pixel area, and a main valley area between the second pixel area and the third pixel area;
an inorganic insulating layer on the substrate and defining a first groove, a third groove, and a second groove respectively overlapping the first sub valley area, the second sub valley area, and the main valley area, a depth of the second groove being different from a depth of the first groove;
an organic insulating layer on the inorganic insulating layer and filling the first groove, the second groove and the third groove (see above rejection of Claim 1); but does not explicitly teach:
an etching prevention layer on a bottom surface of the second groove.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches in Fig. 5A and [0085] at least, an etch stop layer ES at the bottom of a similarly situated groove GR. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Kim to prevent unwanted etching into the substrate, as taught by Kim throughout.
Regarding Claim 12, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 11, wherein the inorganic insulating layer comprises a barrier layer, a buffer layer on the barrier layer, a gate insulating layer on the buffer layer, a first interlayer insulating layer on the gate insulating layer, and a second interlayer insulating layer on the first interlayer insulating layer (see above rejection of Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 12, wherein the first groove and the third groove penetrate the second interlayer insulating layer, and wherein the second groove penetrates the second interlayer insulating layer, the first interlayer insulating layer, and the gate insulating layer (see above rejection of Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 13, wherein the second groove further penetrates the buffer layer (see above rejection of Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 11, wherein a width of the second groove is greater than a width of the first groove and a width of the third groove (see above rejection of Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 11, wherein the second groove is to surround at least a portion of the plurality of pixel areas (see above rejection of Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Choi and Kim teach the display device of claim 11, wherein each of the inorganic insulating layer and the organic insulating layer is continuously formed over the plurality of pixel areas (see above rejection of Claim 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 15-27 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the cited prior art does not teach that the first groove and the third groove further penetrate at least a portion of the first interlayer insulating layer, and the second groove further penetrates at least a portion of the barrier layer.
The remaining claims are similarly objected to as being dependent on an allowable base claim.
The remaining cited prior art in the attached form 892 generally teach trenches formed in inorganic layers and covered/ filled with organic layers in a flexible AMOLED, but do not teach the specifics required by the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812