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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, including claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 each recite the limitations ‘a first segment”, “a second segment”, and “a third segment” in respective lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Since the term ‘segment’ is not linked to any particular claim element, it is unclear if these are portions of previously claimed elements, such as portions of the first and second partitions, or segments of some other structure. This renders the scope of claims 5 and 6 indefinite.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which recites a plurality of segments of the first partition. Therefore it appears the segments of claim 5 are referring to the plurality of first partition segments of claim 4.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claims 5 and 6 as follows:
5. The mother substrate of claim 4, wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other, and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other.
6. The mother substrate of claim 4, wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other, and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and are parallel to each other.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/592579 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Instant application
Reference application
difference
1. A mother substrate for a display device, comprising:
a substrate comprising a linear first side;
a plurality of panel portions;
a margin portion provided on an external side relative to the panel portions; and
a first partition comprising a first lower portion provided in the margin portion,
and a first upper portion provided on the first lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the first lower portion,
wherein the first partition has a shape which is not orthogonal to an extension direction of the first side.
1. A mother substrate for a display device, comprising:
a plurality of panel portions;
a margin portion on an external side relative to the panel portions; and
a first partition provided in the margin portion, wherein the first partition comprises a first lower portion
and a first upper portion provided on the first lower portion and
The limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are disclosed in claim 1 of the reference patent, with the additional feature of a non-orthogonal shape. However, the Examiner asserts that any 3-dimensional object with have at least one 2-dimensinal shape that is non-orthogonal to a given direction. Therefore, the additional limitation in the instant application is not patentably distinct from the reference application.
2. The mother substrate of claim 1, wherein each of the panel portions comprises: a second partition comprising a second lower portion formed of a conductive material, and a second upper portion provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion; a lower electrode surrounded by the second partition; an organic layer provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer; and an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
7. The mother substrate of claim 1, wherein each of the panel portions comprises: a second partition comprising a second lower portion formed of a conductive material, and a second upper portion provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion; a lower electrode surrounded by the second partition; an organic layer provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer; and an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
Identical
3. The mother substrate of claim 2, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer provided over the panel portions and the margin portion and comprising an aperture overlapping the lower electrode, wherein the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer.
8. The mother substrate of claim 7, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer provided over the panel portions and the margin portion and comprising an aperture which overlaps the lower electrode, wherein the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer.
Identical
10. The mother substrate of claim 1, wherein the first partition is formed into a grating shape.
5. The mother substrate of claim 4, wherein the first partition is formed into a grating shape
Identical
12. The mother substrate of claim 10, wherein the first partition comprises at least one arcuate portion.
1. …the side surface and the end portion of the protrusion are formed into an arcuate shape.
Features of claim 12 recited in claim 1 of reference application
13. A display device comprising:
a display area which displays an image;
a surrounding area provided on an external side relative to the display area;
a plurality of terminals arranged in a single direction in the surrounding area; and
a first partition comprising a first lower portion provided in the surrounding area, and a first upper portion provided on the first lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the first lower portion,
wherein the first partition has a shape which is not orthogonal to at least one of an arrangement direction of the terminals and a perpendicular direction orthogonal to the arrangement direction.
9. A display device comprising:
a display area which displays an image;
a surrounding area on an external side relative to the display area; and
a first partition provided in the surrounding area, wherein the first partition comprises a first lower portion comprising an annular side surface which surrounds a closed area, and a first upper portion provided on the first lower portion and comprising an annular protrusion which protrudes from the side surface, an inner circumferential portion which surrounds the closed area in the first partition comprises, in plan view, a plurality of linear portions and a plurality of corner portions each connecting the adjacent two linear portions, in the linear portions, the side surface and an end portion of the protrusion linearly extend, and in the corner portions, the side surface and the end portion of the protrusion are formed into an arcuate shape.
The limitations of claim 13 of the instant application are disclosed in claim 1 of the reference patent, with the additional features of terminals and a non-orthogonal shape. However, the Examiner asserts that terminals are an inherent feature of display devices to facilitate their operation, and are disclosed in fig. 1 of the reference application. In addition, any 3-dimensional object with have at least one 2-dimensinal shape that is non-orthogonal to a given direction. Therefore, the additional limitations in the instant application are not patentably distinct from the reference application.
14. The display device of claim 13, further comprising: a second partition provided in the display area, and comprising a second lower portion formed of a conductive material, and a second upper portion provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion; a lower electrode surrounded by the second partition; an organic layer provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer; and an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
15. The display device of claim 9, further comprising: a second partition comprising a second lower portion formed of a conductive material, and a second upper portion provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion; a lower electrode surrounded by the second partition; an organic layer provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer; and an upper electrode which covers the organic layer and is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
Substantially identical
15. The display device of claim 14, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer provided over the display area and the surrounding area and comprising an aperture overlapping the lower electrode, wherein the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer.
16. The display device of claim 15, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer provided over the display area and the surrounding area and comprising an aperture which overlaps the lower electrode, wherein the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer.
Substantially identical
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (PG Pub. No. (US 2022/0123076 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a substrate for a display device (¶ 0092 & fig. 3), comprising:
a substrate (¶ 0067: 100) comprising a linear first side (figs. 3-4: at least one linear side of 100 extends in the DI1 and/or DI2 direction);
a plurality of panel portions (¶ 0065 & fig. 3: 10A);
a margin portion provided on an external side relative to the panel portions (¶ 0085 & figs. 3-4: portion of MA and/or DMA outside cutline CL1); and
a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1) comprising a first lower portion (109-2) provided in the margin portion (fig. 4: 109-2/111-1/112-1/170-1 provided outside cutline CL1), and a first upper portion (170-1) provided on the first lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the first lower portion (fig. 4: 170-1 disposed on 109-2 and protrudes inward with respect to side surface of 109-2), wherein
the first partition has a shape which is not orthogonal to an extension direction of the first side (fig. 4: 170-1 includes a trapezoidal shape, at least one edge not orthogonal to side of 100 extending in DI1 and/or DI2 direction).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein
the first partition comprises a plurality of segments each formed into a linear shape (fig. 4: at least 170-1, 112-1, and 111-1 comprise a plurality of linear segments).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein
the first partition is formed into an independent loop shape (figs. 3-4: partition outside CL1 formed in a loop around panels 10A).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 7, wherein
the first partition is formed into a polygonal shape (fig. 4: at least portion 170-1 formed in a substantially trapezoid shape, which is a type of polygon) and comprises at least one side intersecting with the extension direction of the first side (figs. 3-4, at least lateral sides of 170-1 intersect with extension directions DI1 and/or DI2).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a display device (¶ 0092 & fig. 3), comprising:
a display area which displays an image (¶ 0067: DA and/or PA);
a surrounding area (¶ 0085: MA and/or DMA) provided on an external side relative to the display area (figs. 3-4: MA and/or DMA provided external to DA/PA);
a plurality of terminals (¶ 0092) arranged in a single direction in the surrounding area (¶ 0209 & fig. 1: terminals in area PADA arranged in single direction of display area edge E4); and
a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1) comprising a first lower portion (109-2) provided in the surrounding area (fig. 4: 109-2/111-1/112-1/170-1 provided in area DMA), and a first upper portion (170-1) provided on the first lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the first lower portion (fig. 4: 170-1 disposed on 109-2 and protrudes inward with respect to side surface of 109-2), wherein
the first partition has a shape which is not orthogonal to at least one of an arrangement direction of the terminals and a perpendicular direction orthogonal to the first arrangement direction (fig. 4: 170-1 includes a trapezoidal shape, at least one edge not orthogonal to terminal arrangement direction and/or perpendicular direction).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein
the first partition comprises a plurality of segments which are linearly extended (fig. 4: at least 170-1, 112-1, and 111-1 comprise a plurality of linear shapes).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the display device of claim 13, wherein
the first partition is formed into an independent loop shape (figs. 3-4: partition outside CL1 formed in a loop surrounding panels 10A).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2015/0097171 A1, hereinafter referenced as ‘Kim-171’).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, wherein each of the panel portions comprises:
a second partition (¶ 0089: 120) comprising a second lower portion (¶ 0138: 121a), and a second upper portion (123a and/or 125a) provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion (fig. 4: 123a disposed on 121a and protrudes inward from side surface of 121a);
a lower electrode (¶ 0111: electrode 310 of LED 300);
an organic layer (¶¶ 0111, 0118: intermediate layer 320 of LED 300, including organic material) provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer (¶ 0118 & fig. 4: 320 provided on 310 and includes light emitting material); and
an upper electrode (¶ 0111: electrode 330 of LED 300) which covers the organic layer (fig. 4: 330 covers 320).
Kim does not teach the second lower portion of the second partition comprises conductive material, the lower electrode surrounded by the second partition, or the upper electrode is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
Kim-171 teaches a panel substrate (fig. 1A) including a partition (¶ 0031: 160/118) including a lower portion of conductive material (wiring 160) surrounding a lower electrode (¶ 0031 & figs. 1A, 2: 160 surrounds LED anode 151), an upper portion (118) protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion (fig. 1A: 118 protrudes from side surface of 160), an upper electrode (¶ 0031: cathode 153) in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition (¶ 0072 & fig. 1A: 153 electrically contacts 160 through conductive layer 154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the second partition of Kim with the conductive structure of Kim-171, as a means to reduce a resistance of the upper electrode (Kim-171, ¶ 0088), avoiding non-uniform luminance (Kim-171, ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Kim-171 teaches the mother substrate of claim 2, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer (Kim, ¶ 0089: 112) provided over the panel portions and the margin portion (Kim, fig. 4: 112 provided over DA, PA and DMA) and comprising an aperture overlapping the lower electrode (Kim, fig. 4: 112 comprises aperture overlapping 310), wherein
the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer (Kim, fig. 4: portions of 120 and 170-1/112-1/111-1 and 109-2 provided on portions of 112).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the display device of claim 13, further comprising:
a second partition (¶ 0089: 120) provided in the display area (fig. 4: 120 provided in DA/PA), and comprising a second lower portion (¶ 0138: 121a), and a second upper portion (123a and/or 125a) provided on the second lower portion and protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion (fig. 4: 123a disposed on 121a and protrudes inward from side surface of 121a);
a lower electrode (¶ 0111: electrode 310of LED 300);
an organic layer (¶¶ 0111, 0118: intermediate layer 320 of LED 300, comprising organic material) provided on the lower electrode and including a light emitting layer (¶ 0118 & fig. 4: 320 provided on 310 and includes light emitting material); and
an upper electrode (¶ 0111: electrode 330 of LED 300) which covers the organic layer (fig. 4: 330 covers 320).
Kim does not teach the second lower portion of the second partition comprises conductive material, the lower electrode surrounded by the second partition, or the upper electrode is in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition.
Kim-171 teaches a panel substrate (fig. 1A) including a partition (¶ 0031: 160/118) including a lower portion of conductive material (wiring 160) surrounding a lower electrode (¶ 0031 & figs. 1A, 2: 160 surrounds LED anode 151), an upper portion (118) protruding from a side surface of the second lower portion (fig. 1A: 118 protrudes from side surface of 160), an upper electrode (¶ 0031: LED cathode 153) in contact with the second lower portion of the second partition (¶ 0072 & fig. 1A: 153 electrically connected to 160 by conductive layer 154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the second partition of Kim with the conductive structure of Kim-171, as a means to reduce a resistance of the upper electrode (Kim-171, ¶ 0088), avoiding non-uniform luminance (Kim-171, ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Kim-171 teaches the display device of claim 14, further comprising an inorganic insulating layer (Kim, ¶ 0089: 112) provided over the display area and the surrounding area (Kim, fig. 4: 112 provided over DA, PA and DMA) and comprising an aperture overlapping the lower electrode (Kim, fig. 4: 112 comprises aperture overlapping 310), wherein
the first partition and the second partition are provided on the inorganic insulating layer (Kim, fig. 4: portions of 120 and 170-1/112-1/111-1 and 109-2 provided on portions of 112).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ni et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2022/0384761 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 7, comprising a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1).
Kim is silent to wherein the first partition is formed into a circular shape.
Ni teaches a display device (¶ 0058: 100) including a circular partition (¶ 0074 & fig. 1: in at least one embodiment, barrier 11 provided in a circular ring shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the partition of Kim with a circular shape, as a means to provide a shape suitable for requirements of display substrates in the display substrate motherboard (Ni, ¶ 0075).
Furthermore, providing the claimed feature of "the first partition is formed into a circular shape" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first partition is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 5-6, 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Tomimatsu et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2006/0197446 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, comprising a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1).
Kim is silent to wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other, and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other.
Tomimatsu teaches a mother substrate (¶ 0060 & fig. 4: 500) including a first partition (¶¶ 0051, 0055: 300/400) with first, second and third segments (fig. 9: 300 includes at least three segments), wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other (fig. 9: at least two segments of 300 arranged in an extension direction of 500 and extends in two lateral directions), and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other (fig. 9: at least two segments of 300 arranged in an extension direction of 500 and extends in vertical and lateral directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the partition of Kim with partition segments, as a means to prevent external contaminants such as moisture from entering the display area (Tomimatsu, ¶ 0075; 300/400 configured to prevent moisture from entering display area 102, similar to PA/DA of Kim).
Furthermore, providing the first through third segments as claimed would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first partition is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 4, comprising a first partition including a plurality of linear segments (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1).
Kim is silent to wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other, and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and are parallel to each other.
Tomimatsu teaches a mother substrate (¶ 0060 & fig. 4: 500) including a first partition (¶¶ 0051, 0055: 300/400) with first, second and third segments (fig. 9: 300 includes at least three segments), wherein
a first segment of the first partition and a second segment of the first partition are arranged in the extension direction of the first side and extend in directions different from each other (fig. 9: at least two segments of 300 arranged in an extension direction of 500 and extends in two lateral directions), and
the first segment of the first partition and a third segment of the first partition are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the extension direction of the first side and are parallel to each other (fig. 9: at least two segments of 300 arranged in an extension direction of 500 and extends in two parallel directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the partition of Kim with a plurality of segments, as a means to prevent external contaminants such as moisture from entering the display area (Tomimatsu, ¶ 0075; 300/400 configured to prevent moisture from entering display area 102, similar to PA/DA of Kim).
Furthermore, providing the first through third segments as claimed would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first partition is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the mother substrate of claim 1, comprising a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1).
Kim is silent to wherein
the first partition is formed into a grating shape.
Tomimatsu teaches a mother substrate (¶ 0060: 500) including a first partition (¶¶ 0051, 0055: 300/400) formed into a grating shape (fig. 9: in at least one embodiment, portion 300 formed in a grating pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the partition of Kim with a grating shape, as a means to prevent external contaminants such as moisture from entering the display area (Tomimatsu, ¶ 0075; 300/400 configured to prevent moisture from entering display area 102, similar to PA/DA of Kim).
Furthermore, providing the claimed feature of "the first partition is formed into a grating shape" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first partition is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Tomimatsu teaches the mother substrate of claim 10, wherein
the first partition comprises at least one side intersecting with the extension direction of the first side (Kim, fig. 4: 109-2/111-1/112-1/170-1 includes at least one side intersection with direction DI1 and/or DI2, and/or Tomimatsu, fig. 6: 300 comprises at least one side intersection with extending direction of 102).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Tomimatsu teaches the mother substrate of claim 10, wherein
the first partition comprises at least one arcuate portion (Kim, figs. 3-4: 109-2/111-1/112-1/170-1 includes at least one curved corner, and/or Tomimatsu, ¶ 0075: 300 comprises a loop shape, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “arcuate”).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the display device of claim 13, comprising a first partition (¶ 0089 & fig. 4: composite structure including elements 109-2, 111-1, 112-1, and 170-1).
Kim is silent to wherein
the first partition is formed into a grating shape.
Tomimatsu teaches a mother substrate (¶ 0060: 500) including a first partition (¶¶ 0051, 0055: 300/400) formed into a grating shape (fig. 9: in at least one embodiment, portion 300 formed in a grating pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the partition of Kim with a grating shape, as a means to prevent external contaminants such as moisture from entering the display area (Tomimatsu, ¶ 0075; 300/400 configured to prevent moisture from entering display area 102, similar to PA/DA of Kim).
Furthermore, providing the claimed feature of "the first partition is formed into a grating shape" would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first partition is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He et al. (PG Pub. No. US 2022/0045300 A1) teaches a display device (fig. 1) including a partition (separation component 32) with an electrically conductive lower portion (3110) and a protruding upper portion (3112), an upper LED electrode (83) in electrical contact with the conductive lower portion (fig. 3: 83 electrically contacts 3110 of element 32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-5411. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights