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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9,12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 20210328184 A1 (Jung) as evidenced by US 20210134924 A1 (Ha).
Regarding claim 1, Jung shows (Fig. 2) a light emitting display device (10, para 43), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
638
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (100, para 44) having an active area (DA, para 46) comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (para 66) and a non-active area (PA1, para 44) surrounding the active area (since the voltage line is usually surrounding the display region as evidenced by Ha Fig. 4, E-VSS line around DA);
a light emitting device (300, para 46) disposed at each of the plurality of sub-pixels;
a first inorganic encapsulation layer (510, para 77) covering the light emitting device, the first inorganic encapsulation layer provided at the active area and the non-active area (as shown above);
a control metal pattern (420, para 69) surrounding the active area at the non-active area, the control metal pattern disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer;
an edge line pattern (613, para 85) disposed on the control metal pattern, the edge line pattern comprising an organic material (like planarization layer 140, para 62 and 85);
an organic encapsulation layer (520, para 78) disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer in an area inward from the control metal pattern; and
a second inorganic encapsulation layer (530, para 79) covering the organic encapsulation layer and the edge line pattern and provided to extend outward from the edge line pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Jung shows (Fig. 2) wherein the edge line pattern (613) is integral with the organic encapsulation layer (520) [as shown above].
Regarding claim 3, Jung shows (Fig. 2) wherein the edge line pattern (613) is made of a material (acryl, para 62) same as the organic encapsulation layer (520, acryl, para 78).
Regarding claim 4, Jung shows (Fig. 2) wherein the edge line pattern is made of an organic material (BCB, para 62) different from the organic encapsulation layer (acryl, para 78).
Regarding claim 15, Jung shows (Fig. 2) a method of manufacturing a light emitting display device (10, para 43), comprising:
preparing a substrate (100, para 44) having an active area comprising a plurality of sub-pixels (para 66) and a non-active area (PA1, para 44) surrounding the active area;
forming a light emitting device (300, para 46) at each of the plurality of sub-pixels;
forming a first inorganic encapsulation layer (510, para 77) covering the light emitting device at the active area and the non-active area;
forming a control metal pattern (420, para 69) surrounding the active area at the non-active area on the first inorganic encapsulation layer;
forming an edge line pattern (613, para 85) on the control metal pattern;
forming an organic encapsulation layer (520, para 78) on the first inorganic encapsulation layer in an area inward from the control metal pattern; and
forming a second inorganic encapsulation layer (530, para 79) covering the organic encapsulation layer and the edge line pattern to extend outward from the edge line pattern.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as evidenced by Ha as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20120139001 A1 (Eberhardt).
Regarding claim 5, Jung as evidenced by Ha shows the control metal pattern.
Jung as evidenced by Ha does not show the control metal pattern comprises a getter metal.
Eberhardt shows the getter material (para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Eberhardt, with getter material, to the invention of Jung as evidenced by Ha.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of protecting the organic material from mechanical damage (para 46).
2. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as evidenced by Ha as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20220415962 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Jung as evidenced by Ha shows the control metal pattern.
Jung as evidenced by Ha does not show the control metal pattern includes one of cerium, lanthanum, magnesium, barium, aluminum, and titanium.
Lee shows (Fig. 6) the control metal pattern (PL1, PL2, para 214) includes one of cerium, lanthanum, magnesium, barium, aluminum, and titanium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Lee, with metal type, to the invention of Jung as evidenced by Ha.
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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
3. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as evidenced by Ha as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20220158052 A1 (Lee2).
Regarding claim 8, Jung as evidenced by Ha shows the control metal pattern looping surrounding the active area.
Jung as evidenced by Ha does not show the control metal pattern has a closed loop shape surrounding the active area.
Lee2 shows (Fig. 4) the control metal pattern (PL3) has a closed loop shape surrounding the active area (DA, para 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Lee2, with closed loop, to the invention of Jung as evidenced by Ha.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized closed loop shape of Lee2 is suitable for the intended use of Jung as evidenced by Ha (MPEP §2144.07).
4. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as evidenced by Ha as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of US 20240389385 A1 (Zhu).
Regarding claim 16, Jung as evidenced by Ha shows forming the edge line pattern is performed in a manner in which a liquid organic material is applied on the control metal pattern.
Jung as evidenced by Ha does not show liquid organic material then cured by light irradiation.
Zhu shows (Fig. 3-11) liquid organic material (52) then cured by light irradiation (para 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Zhu, with curing, to the invention of Jung as evidenced by Ha.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized curing of Zhu is suitable for the intended use of Jung as evidenced by Ha (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, Jung as evidenced by Ha shows forming the organic encapsulation layer is performed in a manner in which a liquid organic encapsulation material is applied and integrated with the edge line pattern.
Jung as evidenced by Ha does not show liquid organic encapsulation material is cured by light irradiation.
Zhu shows (Fig. 3-11) show liquid organic encapsulation material (52) is cured by light irradiation (para 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Zhu, with curing, to the invention of Jung as evidenced by Ha.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized curing of Zhu is suitable for the intended use of Jung as evidenced by Ha (MPEP §2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,10-11,18 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 claim 7, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “control metal pattern has high surface roughness relative to the first inorganic encapsulation layer”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “the control metal pattern overlaps a line provided at the non-active area, and the line at the non-active area is located at a same layer as at least one metal constituting the thin film transistor”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “the organic encapsulation layer and the edge line pattern are simultaneously irradiated with light”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights