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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2017/0345881 in view of Kato US 2019/0348476.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. in Fig. 2, [0049]-[0076] discloses a display device comprising:
a base 110;
a first insulating layer 113 disposed on the base 110;
a display element TFT1 disposed on the first insulating layer 113 for each pixel provided in a display area DA;
a second insulating layer 115 disposed on the first insulating layer 113 and including an opening portion which overlaps the display element TFT1;
a first insulating member 170 disposed in a peripheral area PA on an outer side of the display area DA and surrounding the display area;
a second insulating member 181, 182 disposed in the peripheral area PA so as to be spaced apart from the first insulating member 170 and surrounding the first insulating member; and
an auxiliary member 183 disposed on the second insulating member 181, 182, and
a sealing layer 150 which covers the display element, the sealing layer including:
a first inorganic sealing layer 151 disposed in a region surrounded by the second insulating member 180;
a first organic sealing layer 152 disposed on the first inorganic sealing layer 151 in a region surrounded by the first insulating member 170;
a second inorganic sealing layer 153 disposed in an region surrounded by the second insulating member 180 and sealing the first organic sealing layer 152 together with the first inorganic sealing layer 151; and, wherein
a first distance from the base 110 to an upper surface of the auxiliary member 183 is greater than a second distance from the base 110 to an upper surface of the first insulating member 170.
Kim et al. does not expressly disclose a second organic sealing layer which covers the second inorganic sealing layer in a region surrounded by the second insulating member.
However, in analogous art, Kato in Fig. 2, [0023]-[0101] discloses a second organic sealing layer 126 (i.e. protective layer) which covers a second inorganic sealing layer 124c in a region surrounded by a second insulating member 122c and prevents deterioration of the sealing layer 124 in the manufacturing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kato in the display device of Kim et al. for the purpose of improving the reliability and manufacturing yield of the display apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. in view of Kato teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first organic sealing layer is formed by being interrupted by the first insulating member, and the second organic sealing layer is formed by being interrupted by the second insulating member and the auxiliary member. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding "the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure,” and discussing several cases since Garnero that held “limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture”). (See, for example, MPEP 2113.I.)
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. in view of Kato teaches the display device of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein peripheral portions of the first and second inorganic sealing layers are removed using the second organic sealing layer as a mask. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding "the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure," and discussing several cases since Garnero that held "limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture"). (See, for example, MPEP 2113.I.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 claim 4, Kim et al. in view of Kato teaches the display device of claim 1. Kim et al. discloses a partition 118H disposed on the second insulating layer 115 so as to divide pixels from each other but do not expressly teach the display device further comprising:
wherein first and second insulating members are disposed in a same layer as that of a first and second insulating layers and the auxiliary members are disposed in a same layer as that of the partition.
Claims 5-7 directly or indirectly depend from claim 4.
Although various prior art references disclose several individual limitations in the claims, these references, and their combinations, neither anticipate nor render obvious the above identified limitation(s), as structured and interrelated in the context of the claims.
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 SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898