DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 28 September 2023.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2018/0033980 A1; hereinafter Park).
In regards to claim 20, Park teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (fig. 5C: (BSM/SUB)) ([0072], [0085]) comprising:
a first area (NBA) [0038] comprising a display area (DA) [0066] and a non-display area (NDA) [0066] (fig. 7F); and
a second area (BA) [0038] adjacent to the first area and bent at a predetermined curvature [0054] (figs. 2-3);
a plurality of lower inorganic layers (BFL-A/BFL-B) ([0085-0087]; [0173]) disposed on the base layer (e.g. fig. 5C);
a pixel disposed (PXA) in the display area [0095-0099] (fig. 7F);
a signal line (DP-CL) electrically connected to the pixel (DP-OLED/PXA)) ([0074]: (DP-CL) comprises a plurality of signal lines) and comprising:
a first line portion (e.g. a portion of (DP-CL) in (NDA)) overlapping the non-display area; and
a second line portion (another one of the plurality of signal lines of (DP-CL) in (NDA) and in (BA) as depicted in figs. 3-5) disposed on the first line portion, overlapping the non-display area and the second area, and connected to the first line portion in the non-display area (e.g. DP-CL is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA) in portions of (NDA));
an organic pattern (10) [0090-0093] disposed on a lower inorganic layer disposed at an uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers and disposed on an area where the first line portion is connected to the second line portion in the non-display area (e.g. figs. 3-5: (20/30) is disposed above (BFL) and in contact with (DP-OLED) which is in turn connected to (DL-CL) in (NDA));
an upper inorganic layer (30) [0093] covering the organic pattern in a plan view; and
a power line (E-VSS) [0069] disposed closer to the display area than the second line portion and extending in a direction crossing the first line portion (e.g. fig. 8D: (E-VSS) has an upper end that is vertically closer to the (OLED) portion than lower layers (DP-CL)), wherein the lower inorganic layer disposed at the uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers comprises a first portion area in which the organic pattern is disposed and a second portion area in which the organic pattern is not disposed, and the second portion area surrounds the organic pattern (e.g. fig. 8: lower inorganic layers (BFL-A) and (BFL-B) comprise multiple inorganic layers, the uppermost which are positioned at the uppermost position of the lower inorganic layers; wherein (BFL-B) is covered by (10) (BFL-A) resides at a peripheral surrounding region and is not covered by (10)).
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches a display device comprising:
a base layer (fig. 5C: (BSM/SUB)) ([0072], [0085]) comprising:
a first area (NBA) [0038] comprising a display area (DA) [0066] and a non-display area (fig. 7F: (NDA)) [0066]; and
a second area (BA) [0038] adjacent to the first area and bent at a predetermined curvature [0054] (figs. 2-3);
a plurality of lower inorganic layers (BFL-A/BFL-B) ([0085-0087]; [0173]) disposed on the base layer (e.g. fig. 5C);
a pixel (PXA) disposed in the display area [0095-0099] (fig. 7F);
a signal line electrically connected to the pixel (e.g. (DP-CL) is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA)) ([0074]: (DP-CL) comprises: a plurality of signal lines) and comprising:
a first line portion (e.g. a portion of (DP-CL) in (NDA)) overlapping the non-display area; and
a second line portion (another one of the plurality of signal lines of (DP-CL) in (NDA) and in (BA) disposed on the first line portion, overlapping the non-display area and the second area, and connected to the first line portion in the non-display area (e.g. DP-CL is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA));
an organic pattern (10) disposed on a lower inorganic layer (BFL-A) ([0085-0087]; [0173]) disposed at an uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers comprise multiple inorganic layers (e.g. fig. 8: lower inorganic layers (BFL-A) and (BFL-B), the uppermost which are positioned at the uppermost position of the lower inorganic layers) and disposed on an area where the first line portion is connected to the second line portion in the non-display area (e.g. (DP-CL) has multiple layers which extend into (NDA));
an upper inorganic layer (30) [0093] covering the organic pattern in a plan view;
a conductive pattern (e.g. (AE)) [0095] disposed on the upper inorganic layer and covering the organic pattern in the plan view; and
a power line (E-VSS) [0069] disposed closer to the display area than the second line portion and extending in a direction crossing the first line portion (e.g. fig. 8D: (E-VSS) has an upper end that is vertically closer to the (OLED) portion than lower layers (DP-CL)), wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the power line by a distance.
Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the power line by a distance of at least about 4 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the power line by a distance of at least about 4 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 2, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the power line by a distance equal to or greater than about 4 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 7 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the power line by a distance equal to or greater than about 4 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 7 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 3, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is spaced apart from the organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 4, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the organic pattern comprises:
a first pattern (10) [0090-0093]; and
a second pattern (20) [0090-0093] disposed on the first pattern and disposed inside the first pattern in the plan view (e.g. figs. 5: (10) and (20) overlap in a cross-sectional view and therefore (20) is at least partially inside (10) in the plan view).
In regards to claim 5, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 4. Park further teaches the limitations further comprising a protective conductive pattern (TS-CL1) [0112] overlapping the first area and covering a portion of the second-first line portion in the plan view (figs. 4-7).
In regards to claim 6, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 5. Park further teaches the limitations wherein a portion of the protective conductive pattern is disposed between the first pattern and the second pattern (fig. 8D: e.g. portions of (TS-CL) are disposed between portions of (DP-CL) in a plan view).
In regards to claim 7, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 5. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the protective conductive pattern extends in a direction substantially parallel to a direction in which the second line portion extends (e.g. figs. 7-8: (TS/TS-CL1) run parallel to the substrate and (DP-CP)).
In regards to claim 8, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 5. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the second line portion (e.g. portions of (DP-CL)) is divided into a plurality of lines (e.g. CL, SE, GE, DE, etc.), the protective conductive pattern (TS) is divided into a plurality of line protective patterns (e.g. SL, SP, etc.), and the line protective patterns overlap the plurality of lines, respectively (fig. 8A).
In regards to claim 9, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 8. Park further teaches the limitations wherein an end of the conductive pattern (TS-CL) is disposed further away from the second area (BA) than a point where the second line portion (DP-CL) is divided (e.g. at SE, GE, DE, etc.) (fig. 8D: the upper end of (TS-CL) is further away from (BA) than (SE)).
In regards to claim 10, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the lower inorganic layer disposed at the uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers comprises a first portion area in which the organic pattern is disposed and a second portion area in which the organic pattern is not disposed, and the second portion area surrounds the organic pattern (e.g. fig. 8: lower inorganic layers (BFL-A) and (BFL-B) comprise multiple inorganic layers, the uppermost which are positioned at the uppermost position of the lower inorganic layers; wherein (BFL-B) is covered by (10) (BFL-A) resides at a peripheral surrounding region and is not covered by (10)).
In regards to claim 11, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 10. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the conductive pattern overlaps the first portion area and a portion of the second portion area (fig. 8A).
In regards to claim 12, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 10. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the upper inorganic layer (30) [0093] covers the first portion area and the second portion area (fig. 8A: (30) covers (DP-CL)).
In regards to claim 13, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the first line portion and the second line portion are connected to each other via a contact hole defined through some of the lower inorganic layers (fig. 8A: e.g. portions of (DP-CL/10/20) are connected to each other by contact holes filled with (SE) and (DE)).
In regards to claim 14, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is provided in plural, and the conductive patterns adjacent to each other are spaced apart from each other by a distance equal to or greater than about 6 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 10 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the conductive pattern is provided in plural, and the conductive patterns adjacent to each other are spaced apart from each other by a distance equal to or greater than about 6 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 10 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 15, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the lower inorganic layers (10) corresponding to the second area have a groove (BFL-OP) [0173] defined therein and extending in a direction in which a bending axis extends [0141] (e.g. fig. 8D).
In regards to claim 16, Park teaches display device comprising:
a base layer (fig. 5C: (BSM/SUB)) ([0072], [0085]) comprising:
a first area (NBA) [0038] comprising a display area (DA) [0066] and a non-display area (fig. 7F: (NDA)) [0066]; and
a second area (BA) [0038] adjacent to the first area and bent at a predetermined curvature [0054] (figs. 2-3);
a plurality of lower inorganic layers (BFL-A/BFL-B) ([0085-0087]; [0173]) disposed on the base layer (e.g. fig. 5C);
first (e.g. one of (PXA)) and second (e.g. another of (PXA)) pixels disposed in the display area [0095-0099] (fig. 7F);
a first signal line electrically connected to the first pixel (e.g. (DP-CL) is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA)) ([0074]: (DP-CL) comprises a plurality of signal lines) and comprising:
a first-first line portion (e.g. a portion of (DP-CL) in (NDA)) overlapping the non-display area; and
a second-first line portion (another one of the plurality of signal lines of (DP-CL) in (NDA) and in (BA) as depicted in figs. 3-5) disposed on the first-first line portion, overlapping the non-display area and the second area, and connected to the first-first line portion in the non-display area (e.g. DP-CL is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA));
a second signal line electrically connected to the second pixel (e.g. (DP-CL) is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA)) ([0074]: (DP-CL) comprises a plurality of signal lines) and comprising:
a first-second line portion (e.g. a portion of (DP-CL) in (NDA)) overlapping the non-display area; and
a second-second line portion (another one of the plurality of signal lines of (DP-CL) in (NDA) and in (BA) as depicted in figs. 3-5) disposed on the first-second line portion, overlapping the non-display area and the second area, and connected to the first-second line portion in the non-display area (e.g. DP-CL is connected to (DP-OLED/PXA) in portions of (NDA));
a first organic pattern (10) [0090-0093] disposed on a lower inorganic layer disposed at an uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers and disposed on an area where the first-first line portion is connected to the second-first line portion in the non-display area (e.g. figs. 3-5: (20/30) is disposed above (BFL) and in contact with (DP-OLED) which is in turn connected to (DL-CL) in (NDA));
a second organic pattern (20) [0090-0093] disposed on the lower inorganic layer disposed at the uppermost position among the lower inorganic layers and disposed on an area where the first-second line portion is connected to the second-second line portion in the non-display area (e.g. figs. 3-5: (20/30) is disposed above (BFL/10/etc.) and in contact with (DP-OLED) which is in turn connected to (DL-CL) in (NDA));
an upper inorganic layer (30) [0093] covering the first and second organic patterns in a plan view;
a first conductive pattern (e.g. (AE)) [0095] disposed on the upper inorganic layer and covering the first organic pattern in the plan view; and
a second conductive pattern (CE) [100] disposed on the upper inorganic layer and covering the second organic pattern in the plan view, wherein the first conductive pattern is spaced apart from the second conductive pattern (e.g. fig. 5C: (CE) is indirectly on (30) and vertically spaced apart from (AE)) by a distance
Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the first conductive pattern is spaced apart from the second conductive pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 6 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 10 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the first conductive pattern is spaced apart from the second conductive pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 6 micrometers and equal to or smaller than about 10 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 17, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 16. Park further teaches the limitations wherein the first conductive pattern (e.g. (AE)) [0095] is spaced apart from the first organic pattern (20) [0090-0093] by a distance.
Park appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the first conductive pattern is spaced apart from the first organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view, and the second conductive pattern is spaced apart from the second organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view; however Park teaches elements separated in units of micrometers wherein the distance between elements is a result effective variable that affects the layout and sizes of pixel structures of different colors [0132-0134]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the first conductive pattern is spaced apart from the first organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view, and the second conductive pattern is spaced apart from the second organic pattern by a distance equal to or greater than about 1 micrometer and equal to or smaller than about 3 micrometers in the plan view, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 18, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 16. Park further teaches the limitations further comprising:
a first protective conductive pattern (TS-CL1) [0112] overlapping the first area and covering a portion of the second-first line portion in the plan view (figs. 4-7); and
a second protective conductive pattern (TS-CL1) [0112] overlapping the second area and covering a portion of the second-second line portion in the plan view (figs. 4-7).
In regards to claim 19, Park teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 16. Park further teaches the limitations wherein an organic pattern is not disposed between the first organic pattern and the second organic pattern (e.g. fig. 5B: (10) and (20) are in direct physical contact in portions of the device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific 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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812