DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/461,542 (PG Pub; No. 20224/0081130). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Instant claim 1 and claim 1 of the copending application are identical.
The remaining claims of the copending application are different than the remaining instant claims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 1-6, 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0208862) in view of Ohazama (US PG Pub. No. 2022/04128058) and further in view of Choung et al (US Patent No. 11,610,952).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses, at least in figure 3: A display device (title) comprising: a lower electrode (310, ¶ [0054]); a rib(lower part of 175, not labeled, ¶ [0062]) comprising a pixel aperture (two shown between ribs 175 in fig. 3) which overlaps the lower electrode (310); a partition (top of 175) including a conductive lower portion provided on the rib(lower part of 175) and an upper portion which protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion (see fig. 3); an organic layer (320, ¶ [0056]) which covers the lower electrode (310) through the pixel aperture and emits light based on application of voltage (¶ [0060]); an upper electrode (330, ¶ [0059]) which covers the organic layer (320) and is in contact with the side (top side) surface of the lower portion (below top of 175); a first sealing layer (410, ¶ [0073]) which is formed of an inorganic material (¶ [0073]) and covers a display element (see fig. 3) which includes the lower electrode (310), the organic layer (320) and the upper electrode (330); a first resin layer (700, ¶ [0077] located above the first sealing layer (410); and a color filter(620, ¶ [0074]) located between the first sealing layer (410) and the first resin layer (700).
Lee fails to disclose: 1) a lower conductive portion on the lower portion of 175 (rib)
2.) that the cover substrate (700) comprises a resin.
Ohazama teaches in a display device (¶ [0039]) using a resin substrate (¶ [0058] because it can be conductive and used as a terminal (see paragraph [0053])’
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use resin for the top substrate of Lee, as taught by Ohazama, to allow it to be used as a terminal and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Choung, at least in figure 1A, in a display panel (title, OLED) using a two-part partition (110) wherein the lower portion (110A) is conductive (line 44, column 5). As is shown in figure 2, the cathode (114, line 43, col. 6) is in contact with (110A) which allows an electrical connection between the cathodes in adjacent sub-pixels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a conductive material for the top portion of the lower part of 175 in the device of Lee that the cathode (330) contacts (see fig. 3, right sub-pixel, 330 contacts a top portion of the lower portion of 175) to allow cathodes in adjacent sub-pixels to be electrically connected.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses in figure 3: further comprising a light-shielding layer (610, ¶ [0074], black matrix) which faces the partition (top of 175) via the first sealing layer (410).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the color filter (620) is located between the first sealing layer (410) and the light-shielding layer (610).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the light-shielding layer (610) is located between the first sealing layer (410) and the color filter (620).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein the color filter (620) is thicker than the first sealing layer (410).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the color filter (620) is located above the partition (top of 175).
Regarding Claim 11. Lee discloses in figure 3: A display device comprising: a lower electrode (310); a rib(lower part of 175) comprising a pixel aperture which overlaps the lower electrode (310); a partition (top of 175) including a conductive lower portion provided on the rib(lower part of 175) and an upper portion which protrudes from a side surface of the lower portion; an organic layer (320) which covers the lower electrode (310) through the pixel aperture and emits light based on application of voltage; an upper electrode (330) which covers the organic layer (320) and is in contact with the side surface of the lower portion; a first sealing layer (410) which is formed of an inorganic material and covers a display element including the lower electrode (310), the organic layer (320) and the upper electrode (330); a first resin layer (700) located above the first sealing layer (410); a color filter (620) located between the first sealing layer (410) and the first resin layer (700); a light-shielding layer (610) which faces the partition (top of 175) via the first sealing layer (410); and a second sealing layer (800) which is formed of an inorganic material and covers the first resin layer (700).
Lee fails to disclose: 1) a lower conductive portion on the lower portion of 175 (rib)
2.) that the cover substrate (700) comprises a resin.
Ohazama teaches in a display device (¶ [0039]) using a resin substrate (¶ [0058] because it can be conductive and used as a terminal (see paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use resin for the top substrate of Lee, as taught by Ohazama, to allow it to be used as a terminal and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Choung, at least in figure 1A, in a display panel (title, OLED) using a two-part partition (110) wherein the lower portion (110A) is conductive (line 44, column 5). As is shown in figure 2, the cathode (114, line 43, col. 6) is in contact with (110A) which allows an electrical connection between the cathodes in adjacent sub-pixels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a conductive material for the top portion of the lower part of 175 in the device of Lee that the cathode (330) contacts (see fig. 3, right sub-pixel, 330 contacts a top portion of the lower portion of 175) to allow cathodes in adjacent sub-pixels to be electrically connected.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the color filter (620) is located between the first sealing layer (410) and the light-shielding layer (610).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the light-shielding layer (610) is located between the first sealing layer (410) and the color filter (620).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein the color filter (620) is thicker than the first sealing layer (410).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses in figure 3: wherein an end portion of the color filter (620) is located above the partition (top of 175).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee discloses in figure 3: further comprising a third sealing layer (430, ¶ [0073]) which is formed of an inorganic material (¶ [0073]) and covers the first sealing layer (410), wherein the color filter (620) is located between the third sealing layer (430) and the first resin layer (700).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (862), Ohazama (058) and Choung (952) and further in view of Boek et al (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0049431).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses in figure 3: further comprising a second sealing layer (800, ¶ [0077]) which is formed of an inorganic material and covers the first resin layer (700).
Lee fails to disclose the material of the “low reflection” layer (800).
Boek) teaches in paragraph [0046] using inorganic material for a low reflection layer (anti-reflection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inorganic material for the second sealing layer (800) of Lee, as taught by Boek, to reduce ambient light reflections and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin,125USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee discloses in figure 3: further comprising a third sealing layer (430, ¶ [0073]) which is formed of an inorganic material (¶ [0073]) and covers the first sealing layer (410), wherein the color filter (620) is located between the third sealing layer (430) and the first resin layer (700).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 18 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.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 8 and 16 and specifically comprising the limitation of “and the first sealing layer is in contact with the second sealing layer in the surrounding area” including the remaining limitations.
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in Claims 10 and 18, and specifically comprising the limitation of “and the second sealing layer is in contact with the third sealing layer in the surrounding area” including the remaining limitations.
. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L RALEIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM -3 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, 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.
/DONALD L RALEIGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights