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 8/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art fails to teach the amended limitations of the claims is not persuasive, in view of the rejection as set forth below. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made final.
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, 5, 19, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al., US 2022/0131106.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches an electronic device comprising: a display module (Figures 1, 4 and 5C) comprising a base layer (110), which comprises a margin area (LA) and a pixel area (DA) that surrounds the margin area (see Figure 4), and pixels on the pixel area; and a cover organic layer (WU, [0064], may be plastic which is organic) on the display module, and an encapsulation layer (ENC) comprising a first encapsulating inorganic layer (IL2), a second encapsulating inorganic layer (IL1), and an encapsulating organic layer (OL) disposed between the first encapsulating inorganic layer and the second encapsulating inorganic layer (see Figure 5C), wherein a module hole (DTA) is defined by passing through the display module and the cover organic layer that overlaps the margin area (see Figures 4 and 5C), the margin area is divided into a first area adjacent to the pixel area (2 dams closest to DA), a second area (second 2 dams) that is surrounded by the first area, and a third area (dam closest to hole) that surrounds the module hole and is between the second area and the module hole, and the display module comprises dam patterns (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5) on at least one of the first area or the second area (D1 and D2 are in first area, D3 and D4 are in second area), wherein each of the dam patterns comprises a first insulating patternD1-a), a first pattern (D1-b) on the first insulating pattern, a second insulating pattern (L1) having an opening exposing at least a portion of the first pattern (see Figure 5C), a second pattern (D1-c) on the second insulating pattern and in contact with the first pattern through the opening (see Figure 5C), and a third insulating pattern (IL1) configured to cover the second pattern, and wherein first encapsulating inorganic layer covers the dam patterns (IL2).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches each of the dam patterns surrounds the module hole (Figure 4, dams D).
Regarding claim 19, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 and further teaches an electronic module that overlaps the module hole and is below the display module (Figure 1, EM1).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon teaches an electronic device (Figures 1, 4 and 5C) comprising: a display panel comprising a base layer (110), which comprises a margin area (LA) and a pixel area (DA) that surrounds the margin area, a driving element layer comprising first to seventh insulating layer (111, 141, 142, 161, 181, 182, 390) and a transistor (131), which are on the base layer, a light emitting element layer comprising a pixel defining layer (360) and a light emitting element(270), which are on the driving element layer, and an encapsulation layer (ENC) comprising a first encapsulating inorganic layer (IL2) covering the light emitting element layer, a second encapsulating inorganic layer (IL1), and an encapsulating organic layer (OL) disposed between the first encapsulating inorganic layer and the second encapsulating inorganic layer (see Figure 5C); and an input sensor on the display panel (EM1 and EM2), wherein a module hole (DTA) is defined by passing through the display panel and the input sensor that overlaps the margin area (see Figure 5C), the margin area is divided into a first area adjacent to the pixel area (2 dams closest to DA), a second area (second 2 dams) that is surrounded by the first area, and a third area (dam closest to hole) that surrounds the module hole and is between the second area and the module hole, and the display module comprises dam patterns (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5) on at least one of the first area or the second area (D1 and D2 are in first area, D3 and D4 are in second area), and blocking patterns (D5) on the third area, wherein each of the blocking patterns comprises a first pattern layer (D5-a) on the base layer and a second pattern layer (D5-b) on the first pattern layer, and the blocking patterns are spaced apart from each other to surround the module hole (see Figure 4), and wherein the first encapsulating inorganic layer (IL2) covers the dam patterns and the blocking patterns (see Figure 5C).
Regarding claim 25, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 20 and further teaches the blocking pattern is configured to prevent peeling from occurring in the first to seventh insulating layers during a laser process of forming the module hole ([0078]).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 but is silent as to the width from the module hole to the second area. However, lacking criticality and unexpected results, it is the position of the examiner that it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and design choice to determine the optimum width to ensure appropriate insulating layer protection during the module hole formation while still allowing for excellent display quality and large pixel area.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 1 but is silent as to the width from the module hole to the third area. However, lacking criticality and unexpected results, it is the position of the examiner that it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and design choice to determine the optimum width to ensure appropriate insulating layer protection during the module hole formation while still allowing for excellent display quality and large pixel area.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Park et al., US 2021/0408477.
Regarding claim 24, Kwon teaches the invention as explained above regarding claim 20 and further teaches the first encapsulating inorganic layer (IL1) covers the light emitting element, and the second encapsulating inorganic layer (IL2) is on the first encapsulating inorganic layer. Kwon is silent as to a planarization layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Park teaches the electronic device further comprises a planarization layer between the second encapsulating inorganic layer and the input sensor (110 and 111). Further, it would have been well known for those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide planarization layers to ensure the display surface was flat so as not to interfere with light emission. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a planarization layer in the Kwon device to improve emission quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-18 and 21-23 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: The prior art fails to teach or suggest the second pattern protrudes between the second insulating pattern and the third insulating pattern. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest a first through seventh insulating layer covering the connection electrode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al., US 2021/0408477 teaches a display device comprising a margin area surrounding a module hole and a pixel area surrounding the margin area. Park further teaches the margin area comprises dams. Park fails to teach a second insulating pattern on the dam having an opening exposing at least a portion of a first pattern.
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 MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights