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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued “FIRST, … the transparent adhesive member 122 of Jang fails to teach or suggest the claimed "overcoat layer," as Jang describes the transparent adhesive member 122 is an adhesive component used for coupling the functional film 123 to the wavelength conversion layer 121. Jang, col. 40, 11. 36-39. In contrast, the claimed overcoat layer is supported by descriptions in the specification as-filed that the overcoat layer 330 "may cover the black matrix 310 and the plurality of color filters 320. The overcoat layer 330 may include an organic material and may provide a flat surface on an upper surface of the overcoat layer 330.” The arguments are not persuasive because the claimed feature was given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim simply recites “overcoat layer” without providing a detailed structure. The layer disclosed by the reference overcoat a pattern; thus, it met the requirement of the claim. The structure described in the specification was not imported into the claim as limitations.
The Applicant has argued “SECOND, … Jang is silent as to a thickness range for the overcoat layer 121b.” The argument is ungermane because the Office Action did state “Jang is silent about the thickness range of the overcoat layer.” This claimed range was obvious and was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Applicant has argued “THIRD, … the specification teaches that the claimed thickness range is specifically engineered to avoid problems of "when the thickness dl of the overcoat layer 330 is less than about 10 … The Office Action asserts that the claimed thickness range of the overcoat layer would have been obvious in order to provide sufficient protection while maintaining low thermal stress due to mismatch micrometers … but Jang does not teach or suggest any rationale for setting a particular thickness value or thickness range of an overcoat layer … motivation does not adequately bridge that gap, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.” The arguments are not persuasive because the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a range of thickness of a layer in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Optimizing a thickness of a layer in a stack for reducing stress due to mismatch is a common practice in the art.
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.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,284,864).
Regarding to claim 1, Jang teaches a display device comprising:
a display module including a first region and a second region arranged in a first direction (Fig. 8, Fig. 21, column 8, lines 1-2, the pixel region of the display panel, first direction is the horizontal direction);
a first support layer disposed under the display module and configured to overlap the first region, the first support layer having a plurality of openings defined therein (Fig. 8, Fig. 21, column 12, lines 10-15); and
a second support layer disposed under the display module and configured to overlap the second region, the second support layer being spaced apart from the first support layer in the first direction (Fig. 8, Fig. 21, column 25, lines 35-38),
wherein the display module includes:
a base layer including a display region and a non-display region disposed adjacent to the display region (Fig. 21, element 100, column 17, lines 13-14, display region is on right side, including emitting device 113, the non-display region is on the left side);
a circuit layer disposed on the base layer (Fig. 21, element 111, column 18, lines 19-21);
a light emitting element layer disposed on the circuit layer, the light emitting element layer including at least one light emitting element (Fig. 21, element 113, column 29, lines 53-55); and
an anti-reflective layer disposed on the light emitting element layer (Fig. 21, including stack 121-123, column 40, lines 40-43), the antireflective layer including at least one organic pattern (Fig. 21, layer 121, column 40, lines 5-7) and an overcoat layer configured to cover the at least one organic pattern (Fig. 21, layer 122),
wherein the circuit layer includes:
a dam structure disposed on the non-display region, the dam structure including at least one dam (Fig. 21, element 117, column 42, lines 62-64); and
a blocking member (Fig. 21, portion of layer 121 on the dam structure) configured to overlap at least a portion of the dam structure on a plane, the blocking member including the same material as the at least one organic pattern (Fig. 21, please see the attached figure, the blocking member 121 overlap the dam structure and including the same material with portion of layer 121 on emitting device),
wherein the overcoat layer has a thickness (Fig. 21), and
wherein the overcoat layer overlaps at least a portion of the blocking member on the plane (Fig. 21).
Jang is silent about the thickness range of the overcoat layer, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the thickness of the overcoat layer to be in a range of about 10 micrometers to about 50 micrometers in order to provide sufficient protection while maintaining low thermal stress due to mismatch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 6, Jang teaches the dam structure includes:
a first dam disposed adjacent to the display region (Fig. 21, the third dam from left); and
a second dam spaced apart from the display region with the first dam disposed therebetween (Fig. 21, the second dam from left), and
wherein a separation space is defined between the first dam and the second dam (Fig, 21).
Regarding to claim 7, Jang teaches at least a portion of the blocking member is disposed between the first dam and the second dam (Fig. 21).
Regarding to claim 8, Jang teaches the blocking member overlaps at least a part of the first dam and the second dam (Fig. 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
751
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 9, Jang teaches the circuit layer includes a plurality of insulating layers and wherein the at least one dam includes at least one of the plurality of insulating layers (Fig. 21, elements 114).
Regarding to claim 10, Jang teaches the overcoat layer is in contact with the blocking member (Fig. 21, layer 122 is in contact with the blocking member 121).
Regarding to claim 11, Jang teaches at least a portion of the first region is folded about an axis configured to extend in a second direction crossing the first direction (Fig. 21).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 16, Jang teaches a cover member disposed between the display module and the first support layer, the cover member including an elastic material (Fig. 8, column 28, lines 27-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed. The reasons for allowance of claims 17-20 were provided in the previous Office Action.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 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 statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter were provided in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights