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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0151838).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 9, Park [Figs.2,3,5,7] discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate including a display area and a non-display area disposed around the display area;
a thin film transistor [110] disposed on the substrate;
a first protective layer [105-1] disposed on the thin film transistor;
a second protective layer [105-2] disposed on the first protective layer;
a first electrode [131] disposed on the second protective layer;
a bank disposed [106] on the first electrode;
an encapsulation portion [120] disposed on the bank;
a first stopper [two 106 structures on layer 105-2], a second stopper [lower 106 structure on side of 105-1] disposed adjacent to the first stopper, and a third stopper [153] disposed adjacent to the second stopper and disposed in the non-display area,
wherein heights of the first stopper, the second stopper, and the third stopper are different from one another [Fig.3];
wherein the non-display area [I/A] includes a first area [area under layer 122] around the display area [A/A], and a second area [area outside layer 122] adjacent to the first area,
wherein the first stopper and the second stopper [106] are disposed in the first area, and
wherein the third stopper [153] is disposed in the second area;
wherein the encapsulation portion [120/122] overlaps the first stopper and the second stopper;
wherein the first electrode [131] overlaps the first stopper and the second stopper [Figs.2-3];
further comprising a dam [157/357] disposed in the second area [Figs.3,7]
wherein the dam [357] is configured as one [Fig.7];
further comprising a first metal layer [114] disposed between the first protective layer and the second protective layer,
wherein the first metal layer [114] overlaps portions of the first stopper and the second stopper [Figs.2-3].
Regarding claims 14-16, Park [Figs.2,3,5,7] discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate including a display area [A/A] and a non-display area [I/A] including a first area around the display area, and a second area adjacent to the first area;
a thin film transistor disposed on the substrate in the display area;
a first protective layer disposed on the thin film transistor;
a second protective layer disposed on the first protective layer;
a bank disposed on the second protective layer;
a first stopper [106] located in the first area and a second stopper [106] disposed adjacent to the first stopper; and
a third stopper [153] located in the second area and a dam [157] disposed adjacent to the third stopper [Discussed above];
further comprising an encapsulation portion [120] disposed on the bank,
wherein the encapsulation portion overlaps the first stopper and the second stopper [Discussed above];
further comprising a first electrode disposed on the second protective layer,
wherein the first electrode overlaps the first stopper and the second stopper [Discussed above].
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0151838) in view of Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0122890).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Park ’838 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first stopper [106] is connected to the bank [106]. However, Park ’890 [Fig.4] discloses a display device wherein the first stopper [110] is connected to the bank [110] [it appears part of the first stopper is also the bank disposed on the first electrode]. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the first stopper is connected to the bank, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0151838) in view of Jeon (U.S. Pub. 2022/0209179).
Regarding claim 10, Park [Fig.2] discloses the display device further comprising a spacer [107] disposed on the bank [106], but fails to explicitly disclose the display device wherein the second stopper includes the same material as the spacer, and is formed of multiple layers. However, Jeon [Fig.7A] discloses a display device further comprising a spacer [119] disposed on the bank [118 in opening 118OP], wherein the second stopper [DP] includes the same material [119A] as the spacer, and is formed of multiple layers [116,118,119]. It would have been obvious to use provide the spacer and the multi-layered stopper as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0151838) in view of Takahashi (U.S. Pub. 2019/0363146).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Park fails to explicitly disclose the claimed respective separation distances between the stoppers. However, Takahashi [Fig.1B] discloses a display device wherein a separation distance between the second stopper [BK3a] and the third stopper [BK4] is greater than a separation distance between the first stopper [BK2a] and the second stopper [BK3a]. It would have been obvious to use provide the respective separation distances between the stoppers as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub. 2018/0151838) in view of Ochi (U.S. Pub. 2019/0363275).
Regarding claim 13, Park fails to explicitly disclose the display wherein each of the first stopper, the second stopper, and the third stopper has two or more sub-stoppers. However, Ochi [Fig.11] discloses a display wherein each of the first stopper [BK2a], the second stopper [BK3a] , and the third stopper [BK4a] has two or more sub-stoppers. It would have been obvious to use provide the stoppers comprising sub-stoppers as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 19-20 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: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
wherein the first stopper includes a first portion, a second portion located adjacent to the first portion, and a third portion located adjacent to the second portion,
wherein the first portion connects the bank and the second portion, and
wherein the second portion is disposed between the first portion and the third portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights