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 .
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 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.
Status of Application
In response to Office action mailed 02/13/2026, Applicants amended claims 12-13 in the response filed 04/15/2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see 04/15/2026 Remarks, Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 overcomes the previous 35 USC § 112 claim rejection of claim 12.
Applicant's arguments, see 04/15/2026 Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant argues that the position and formation of "groove-2" in Figure 8a of Kim is not directly related to the "pixel definition layer" or "optical isolation." Therefore, the "groove-2" in Kim differs from the "second groove" of the present application in terms of location, layer hierarchy, and core function.” Kim teaches, for clarity, groove-1 which is taken to be the space between adjacent B’s containing the stack of layers including E (see Fig. 8a) and groove-2 (for e.g. which are taken to be the two adjacent B’s in the center of Fig. 8a filled with B’s material composition). Fig. 8a of Kim specifically teaches the claimed limitations of: the pixel definition layer B comprises one or more first grooves ("groove-1") corresponding to the light-emitting areas (E) and one or more second grooves ("groove-2") disposed in the non-light-emitting region (region outside of groove-1’s (see Fig. 8a); wherein a protrusion ("protrusion") is provided at an opening of each of the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), the common functional layer (AE) is disconnected (discontinuous) at the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), and a protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer (see Fig. 8a). Applicant’s argument that Kim’s "groove-2" differs from that of the application in terms of location, layer hierarchy, and core function is not convincing. As demonstrated above, Kim teaches the aforementioned claim limitations (i.e. location). If the Applicant feels that there is a structural difference between the devices they are encouraged to amend the claims accordingly. Furthermore, the “core function” does not structurally distinguish the apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having one or more second grooves disposed in the non-light-emitting region, which Kim clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Applicant argues the "protrusion" in the present application is formed through a specific "undercut" process through process control. Applicant states that its core feature lies in its strict dimensional relationship: “the protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one- tenth of the thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer.”
Kim teaches the claimed limitations of: a protrusion (“protrusion”) is provided at an opening of each of the second grooves, the common functional layer (AE) is disconnected at the second grooves (discontinuous), the first encapsulation sublayer 270 is provided continuously at the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), and a protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer. For clarity, the protrusion is taken to be any portion/amount of the annotated “protrusion” in annotated Fig. 8a), with this interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art could deduce that the protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer. If the Applicant feels there is a special feature unique to the protrusion he is encouraged to amend the claims accordingly.
It is for the reasons provided above that the previous rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained.
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) 1-5, 7 and 9-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (PG Pub 2020/0212131; hereinafter Kim) and Ochi et al. (PG Pub 2022/0190290; hereinafter Ochi).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig 6a provided above, Kim teaches a display panel (see claim limitations below) comprising a plurality of light-emitting areas (within groove-1) spaced apart from each other and a non-light-emitting area (area outside of the light emitting areas) between the light-emitting areas (see Fig. 8a), wherein the display panel comprises:
a substrate 210;
a pixel definition layer (B) disposed on the substrate, and comprising one or more first grooves (annotated “groove-1”) corresponding to the light-emitting areas and one or more second grooves (annotated “groove-2”) disposed in the non-light-emitting region (see Fig. 8a);
a light-emitting device layer (E) disposed on the pixel definition layer and the substrate (see Fig. 8a), comprising a light-emitting functional layer (EL) and a common functional layer (AE), wherein the light-emitting functional layer is located in the light-emitting areas and the common functional layer is located in the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area (see Fig. 8a); and
an encapsulation layer 270 disposed on the light-emitting device layer;
wherein a protrusion (annotated “protrusion” in Fig. 8a) is provided at an opening of each of the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), the common functional layer is disconnected at the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), and a protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer.
Although, Kim teaches the first encapsulation is provided continuously at the second grooves and is on disposed on the light-emitting device layer, the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area; he does not explicitly teach the encapsulation layer comprises a first encapsulation sublayer disposed on the light-emitting device layer, the first encapsulation sublayer being located in the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area.
PNG
media_image2.png
318
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 4-provided above, Ochi teaches a display device 50a comprising: an encapsulation layer 28 (para [0065]) disposed on a light emitting device 25 (para [0025]) and comprising a first encapsulation layer sublayer 26 (para [0065]) disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4); wherein the first encapsulation sublayer being located in the light-emitting areas (between adjacent 22’s) and the non-light-emitting area ( outside of 25) (see Fig. 4).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the encapsulation layer of Kim comprise a multi-layered structure, as taught by Ochi, to prevent moisture from permeating within the device (para [0002]).
Note, with the first encapsulation sublayer of Ochi being directly below the first encapsulation layer of Kim the claimed limitation of the first encapsulation sublayer being continuous at the second grooves would be taught.
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches an included angle (annotated Ɵ in Fig. 8a) between a sidewall (ex. left sidewall) and a bottom surface of each of the second grooves (“groove-2”) is greater than or equal to 90 degrees (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 3, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches one end of the protrusion (left end) is in contact with a sidewall at an opening of a corresponding second groove of the second grooves (protrusion extends from “groove-2” on the left die of E to the protrusion tip on the right-side groove-2), and another end of the protrusion extends toward inside of the corresponding second groove.
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protrusion (“protrusion”) has a first side surface (e.g. left sidewall) away from the substrate (210 (separated by at least 230,240,250), and the first side surface is aligned with a side surface of the pixel definition layer (portion of “B” abutting the protrusion sidewall) away from the substrate (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protrusion (“protrusion”) has a second side surface (annotated “s2”) connected to one end of the first side surface (annotated “s1”) close to the inside of the corresponding second groove (“groove-2”), and an included angle between the second side surface and the first side surface is an obtuse angle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape (i.e. angle of the first and second side) of the protrusion (ex. to be linear or acute) as a routine expedient.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protruding distance of the protrusion (“protrusion”) is greater than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the common functional layer (AE) (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches there are a plurality of second grooves (“groove-2”) provided between two adjacent light-emitting areas (E), and at least a portion of the second grooves are provided along an edge of one of the adjacent light-emitting areas (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the second grooves (“groove-2”) are curved grooves, corrugated grooves, or zigzag grooves (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches there are a plurality of second grooves (“groove-2”) arranged at intervals along a direction (horizontal direction) from a center of one of the light-emitting areas (e.g. center of left (E) toward a center of another of the light-emitting areas (e.g. right (E)).
Regarding claim 12, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the light-emitting areas (E) are each rectangular (see Fig. 8a) and are arranged at intervals in a first direction (horizontal direction) or a second direction, and the second grooves (“gorove-2”) are each long rectangle correspondingly extending in the first direction or the second direction (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 13, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches there are two second grooves (“gorove-2”) provided at intervals between the two adjacent light-emitting areas (E), the two second grooves are both long rectangles extending in the first direction (horizontal) (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 14, refer to Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig 6a provided above, Kim teaches a display device (see claim limitations below) wherein the display device comprises a display panel (see limitations below), the display panel comprising:
a substrate 210;
a pixel definition layer (B) disposed on the substrate, and comprising one or more first grooves (annotated “groove-1”) corresponding to the light-emitting areas and one or more second grooves (annotated “groove-2”) disposed in the non-light-emitting region (see Fig. 8a);
a light-emitting device layer (E) disposed on the pixel definition layer and the substrate (see Fig. 8a), comprising a light-emitting functional layer (EL) and a common functional layer (AE), wherein the light-emitting functional layer is located in the light-emitting areas and the common functional layer is located in the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area (see Fig. 8a); and
an encapsulation layer 270 disposed on the light-emitting device layer;
wherein a protrusion (annotated “protrusion” in Fig. 8a) is provided at an opening of each of the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), the common functional layer is disconnected at the second grooves (see Fig. 8a), and a protruding distance of the protrusion is less than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the first encapsulation sublayer.
Although, Kim teaches the first encapsulation is provided continuously at the second grooves and is on disposed on the light-emitting device layer, the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area; he does not explicitly teach the encapsulation layer comprises a first encapsulation sublayer disposed on the light-emitting device layer, the first encapsulation sublayer being located in the light-emitting areas and the non-light-emitting area.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 5-provided above, Ochi teaches a display device 50a comprising: an encapsulation layer 28 (para [0065]) disposed on a light emitting device 25 (para [0025]) and comprising a first encapsulation layer sublayer 26 (para [0065]) disposed on the light-emitting device layer (see Fig. 4); wherein the first encapsulation sublayer being located in the light-emitting areas (between adjacent 22’s) and the non-light-emitting area ( outside of 25) (see Fig. 4).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the encapsulation layer of Kim comprise a multi-layered structure, as taught by Ochi, to prevent moisture from permeating within the device (para [0002]).
Note, with the first encapsulation sublayer of Ochi being directly below the first encapsulation layer of Kim the claimed limitation of the first encapsulation sublayer being continuous at the second grooves would be taught.
Regarding claim 15, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches an included angle (annotated Ɵ in Fig. 8a) between a sidewall (ex. left sidewall) and a bottom surface of each of the second grooves (“groove-2”) is greater than or equal to 90 degrees (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 16, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches one end of the protrusion (left end) is in contact with a sidewall at an opening of a corresponding second groove of the second grooves (protrusion extends from “groove-2” on the left die of E to the protrusion tip on the right-side groove-2), and another end of the protrusion extends toward inside of the corresponding second groove.
Regarding claim 17, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protrusion (“protrusion”) has a first side surface (e.g. left sidewall) away from the substrate (210 (separated by at least 230,240,250), and the first side surface is aligned with a side surface of the pixel definition layer (portion of “B” abutting the protrusion sidewall) away from the substrate (see Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 18, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protrusion (“protrusion”) has a second side surface (annotated “s2”) connected to one end of the first side surface (annotated “s1”) close to the inside of the corresponding second groove (“groove-2”), and an included angle between the second side surface and the first side surface is an obtuse angle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape (i.e. angle of the first and second side) of the protrusion (ex. to be linear or acute) as a routine expedient.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 20, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Kim and Ochi, Kim teaches the protruding distance of the protrusion (“protrusion”) is greater than or equal to one tenth of a thickness of the common functional layer (AE) (see Fig. 8a).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 6, 8 and 19 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:
• Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 6, the included angle between the sidewall and the bottom surface of each of the second grooves is greater than 90 degrees and less than 100 degrees, and a depth of each of the second groove is less than or equal to a maximum thickness of the pixel definition layer.
• Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 8, the light-emitting functional layer includes a first light-emitting sublayer and a second light-emitting sublayer, and the common functional layer includes a charge-generating layer disposed between the first light-emitting sublayer and the second light-emitting sublayer; and the charge-generating layer is disconnected at the second grooves.
• Claim 19 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 19, the included angle between the sidewall and the bottom surface of each of the second grooves is greater than 90 degrees and less than 100 degrees, and a depth of each of the second groove is less than or equal to a maximum thickness of the pixel definition layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights