DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/24, 01/06/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0138236, in view of Won et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0194714.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic device 1000 comprising:
a display panel DP comprising a base layer comprising a first area (margin area A1) and second area (pixel area A2) surrounding the first area, pixels on the base layer overlapping the second area, and an encapsulation layer covering the pixels and provided with a module hole defined therethrough and overlapping the first area (layers 141, 142, 143),
a cover layer comprising an organic material 142 and on the display panel,
an anti-reflective layer ARL (Fig. 5, [0099]) on the cover layer (cover organic layer IJP),
an electronic module overlapping the module hole MH, and
a window 300 (Fig. 5, [0099]) on the anti-reflective layer,
wherein the first area comprises a dam area (A1-1, A1-2, DMP1-DMP8) adjacent to the second area and surround the module hole (DMP1-DMP8 surrounding MH) and a margin area between the module hole MH and the dam area (A1-3).
Kim discloses that layer IJP overlapping the dam area and second or pixel area but fails to disclose that the cover layer is spaced apart from the margin area.
Won discloses the cover layer 148 is spaced apart from the margin area (second inner dam 118 surrounds substrate hole 120. Organic layer 148 is formed in the region but not in hole region HA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kim in view of Won to prevent the organic materials from diffusing toward the hole region.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kim and Won don’t mention the thickness of the cover layer. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the encapsulation layer comprises:
a first inorganic layer IOL1 covering the pixels,
a second inorganic layer IOL2 on the first inorganic layer, and an organic layer OL between the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the cover layer contacts the second inorganic layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer contact each other in the margin area (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the display panel further comprises an intermediate layer between the second inorganic layer and the cover layer and extending from the second area to the margin area via the dam area, and the intermediate layer comprises an inorganic material.
Regarding claim 8, Kim and Won don’t mention the thickness of the cover layer. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the electronic device of claim 4, further comprising an input sensor comprising: a first sensing insulating layer on the encapsulation layer, a second sensing insulating layer on the first sensing insulating layer, a first conductive layer on the second sensing insulating layer, a third sensing insulating layer covering the first conductive layer and on the second sensing insulating layer, and a second conductive layer on the third sensing insulating layer, wherein the cover layer covers the second conductive layer and is on the third sensing insulating layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses wherein the first sensing insulating layer and the third sensing insulating layer overlap the second area and the dam area, and Won are spaced apart from the margin area, and the second sensing insulating layer extends from the second area to the margin area via the dam area.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Won fail to disclose the first sensing layer and third sensing layer have a thickness greater than a thickness of the cover layer. However, the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the first sensing layer and the third sensing layer comprise organic material and the second sensing insulating layer comprises inorganic material (Kim disclose the sensing layers comprise organic or inorganic layers).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses: further comprising dam patterns in the dam area and surrounding the module hole, wherein each of the dam patterns comprises a tip portion protruding from a side surface of the dam pattern and comprising a conductive material (DM1-MD2 each having a closed-line shape surround module hole MH, first pattern SD1 and second pattern SD2, SD2 protrudes outward U-1, U-2 from between insulating patterns 60-P and 70-P, Fig. 5-7, [0151]-[0154].
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the tip portion is covered by the first inorganic layer (SD2 tip is part of the dam pattern and the encapsulating inorganic layer covering the dam pattern, Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the boundary of the organic layer in the dam area is defined by one of the dam patterns (Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a first adhesive layer between the cover layer and the anti-reflective layer, and a second adhesive layer between the anti-reflective layer and the window, wherein the first and second adhesive layers comprise at least one of an optically clear adhesive, and optically clear adhesive resin, or a pressure sensitive adhesive (AD2 between ARL and window 300; AD1 may include the same material as AD1, [0099], [0137]-[0138]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the window further comprises a bezel pattern on a rear surface of the window overlapping the first area and provided with an opening defined therethrough and overlapping the module hole (Figs. 5-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights