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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-34 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process of making and product made and combination and subcombination, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek (US 20190196619 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a display device, comprising:
a substrate (SUB) including an active area (AA) and a non-active area (NAA) surrounding the active area [Fig. 1];
a light emitting element (OLED) in the active area (AA) [Fig. 2];
an encapsulation unit (TFE) covering the light emitting element [Fig. 2];
a first organic layer (TS-IL1) disposed along a circumference of the substrate on the encapsulation unit in the non-active area [Fig. 2, shows that TS extends to the circumference and is along the circumference of the substrate]; and
a second organic layer (TS-IL2) covering the encapsulation unit and the first organic layer [Fig. 2, ¶¶0115-0117, the touching sensor layer may be made up of multiple layers and there are layers that can be made from organic material].
Regarding claim 2, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein an end portion of the first organic layer and an end portion of the substrate are disposed at a lateral edge of the display device [Fig. 2, ¶0065].
Regarding claim 3, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein an end portion of the second organic layer and an end portion of the substrate are disposed at a lateral edge of the display device [Fig. 2, ¶0065].
Regarding claim 7, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the encapsulation unit includes,
a first encapsulation layer (IOL1) covering the light emitting element (OLED);
a foreign material cover layer (OL) on the first encapsulation layer; and
a second encapsulation layer (IOL2) on the foreign material cover layer,
wherein the first organic layer (TS-IL1) is disposed on the second encapsulation layer [Fig. 8, ¶¶0102 and 0111].
Regarding claim 8, Baek teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the first encapsulation layer (IOL1) and the second encapsulation layer (IOL2) are in contact with each other under the first organic layer [Fig. 8, ¶0127].
Regarding claim 9, Baek teaches the display device of claim 7, further comprising: a dam (DMP) configured to prevent overflow of the foreign material cover layer in the non-active area [Fig. 8, ¶0126], wherein the first organic layer is disposed outside the dam [Fig. 8, ¶0127, disposed outside of dam as the encapsulation unit covers the dam].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190196619 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 20220059798 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1.
Baek doesn’t teach the first organic layer including a first and second organic pattern separated from each other.
Song et al. teaches a display panel with the first organic layer (BDP) includes at least a first organic pattern (SBDP1) and a second organic pattern (SBDP3) that separated from each other [Fig. 12, ¶0172].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device taught by Baek with the teachings of organic patterns as taught by Song et al. because there can be a step for flattening an insulation layer, which is done to prevent bubbles from forming within the display device, can be bypassed by the inclusion of the organic patterns as described by Song et al. which would reduce manufacturing cost [¶0175, Song et al.].
Regarding claim 5, Baek in view of Song et al. teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the first organic pattern (SBDP1) is disposed outside the second organic pattern (SBDP3) and an end portion of the first organic pattern is separated from a lateral edge from the display device [Fig. 12, outside is a broad term and it can be said that the first organic pattern is disposed outside the second organic pattern because it isn’t disposed within or in areas between the second organic pattern, an end portion is separated from a lateral edge portion as seen in the Fig. 12 below, Song et al.].
PNG
media_image1.png
408
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Baek in view of Song et al. teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein an end portion of the first organic pattern is disposed at a lateral edge of the display device [as seen in the attached Fig. 12].
Regarding claim 14, Baek in view of Song et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of touch electrodes (TE) between the encapsulation unit (TFEL) and the second organic layer (PF) [Fig. 15, ¶0184, the material for the polarizing film is not disclosed, but it is known in the art there may be an organic layer within a polarizing film].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device taught by Baek with the plurality of touch electrodes between the encapsulation unit and the second organic layer as taught by Song et al. because it would allow for ease of signal transference.
Regarding claim 15, Baek in view of Song et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first organic layer (BDP) is formed using a first process to fill a region between adjacent display devices on the substrate [Fig. 9, ¶0109, shows the adjacent placement between the display devices].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device as taught by Baek with the first organic layer placement as taught by Song et al. because having the first organic layer between adjacent display devices would allow for better visual recognition of an image created from the display device [¶0125, Song et al.].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190196619 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Choi et al. (US 20220328586 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Baek teaches the display device of claim 7.
Baek doesn’t teach a thickness of the first organic layer is smaller than a thickness of the foreign material cover layer.
Choi et al. teaches a thickness of the first organic layer (712) is smaller than a thickness of the foreign material cover layer (420) [Fig. 6, ¶¶0124 and 0142, the cover layer is less than about 0.16 times the thickness D and the first organic layer is part of the layers which denotes the thickness D5 which is 0.1 times the thickness D and would therefore have a smaller thickness than the cover layer].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device taught by Baek with the thickness difference taught by Choi et al. because the difference in thickness would allow for the display device to be created to be more stable and less prone to damages within the display device.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190196619 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20220158129 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1.
Baek doesn’t teach the first and second organic layer being formed of different materials.
Kim et al. teaches the first organic layer (Y-OC) and the second organic layer (HRF) are formed of different materials [¶¶0142-0146, materials stated for both layers are different].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device as taught by Baek with the materials difference as taught by Kim et al. because the different materials would have different refractive indices which would be beneficial to the structure of the display device.
Regarding claim 12, Baek in view of Kim et al. teaches the display device of claim 11, wherein the first organic layer includes photo acrylic (Y-OC, ¶0143, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate is a photo resist which can be seen as a photo acryic, Kim et al.) and the second organic layer includes (TS-IL2, ¶0117, Baek) an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, or silicon oxycarbon.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190196619 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US 20190326556 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Baek teaches the display device of claim 1.
Baek doesn’t teach the thickness of the first organic layer being smaller than the thickness of the second organic layer.
Hamada et al. teaches a thickness of the first organic layer (163) is smaller than a thickness of the second organic layer (165) [Fig. 12, ¶0052, within a range and the first organic layer can have smaller thickness than the second organic layer].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device as taught by Baek with the organic layer thicknesses as taught by Hamada et al. because it would be the optimal configuration to obtain a secure display device with minimal interference or leakage.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190196619 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 20220059798 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220158129 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Baek in view of Song et al. teaches the display device of claim 15.
Baek in view of Song et al. doesn’t teach the second organic layer being planar.
Kim et al. teaches the second organic layer (HRF) is formed using a second process to planarize all display devices on the substrate [Fig. 11, ¶0145, HRF is defined as a planarization layer which would planarize the display devices as it is on the display device], wherein the second process is different from the first process [claims for patenting product not the method of producing the device which].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the display device as taught by Baek in view of Song et al. with the planarization of the display device with the second organic layer as taught by Hamada et al. because it would allow for uniformity of the display device.
Regarding claim 17, Baek in view of Song et al. and Kim et al. teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the first process in an exposure process (¶0144, photo-curable material which would be done through exposure process, Kim et al.) and the second process in an inkjet process (¶0117, material said to be acrylic resin or epoxy resin and it can be said that this process or different process would be able to implement the resin into the structure. For device (product-by-process) claims, the process limitation only limits the product if it imparts a structural or functional difference. Otherwise, the device is anticipated or obvious if the prior art device is the same, regardless of how it was made. See MPEP § 2113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights