DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 9/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments and amendments, filed 9/20/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, although substantive and pertinent to expediting the prosecution of the current application, are considered not persuasive, respectfully, for the reasons that follow.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite “wherein a thickness of the auxiliary dam is less than or equal to a thickness of the second hole peripheral dam” and “the encapsulation substrate contacts the capping layer and is supported by the auxiliary dam in the valley area” which applicants contend is not disclosed or taught by the prior art, including Han (Remarks 9-10).
Applicants’ contentions are fully considered, however are not found persuasive, since as noted below in the rejection of independent claim 1 Han discloses wherein a thickness of the auxiliary dam 214 is less than or equal to a thickness of the second hole peripheral dam 302, since Figure 6 of Han depicts dam 214 with a smaller thickness than dam 302 (A figure teaches everything it shows. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972)), and Han discloses the encapsulation substrate 173 contacts the capping layer 171 and is supported by the auxiliary dam 214 in the valley area, since 173 is in contact with layer 171 and is disposed on dam 214 as shown in Figure 6 of Han.
Thus, for the aforementioned reasons the rejection is deemed proper.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 8/21/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0109028 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0165815 A1, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 1-6 of Han disclose a display device comprising:
a support substrate 101 (“substrate”- ¶0058) including a main area including a display area AA (“display area”- ¶0053) in which light emitting areas are arranged, a hole area CH (“hole”- ¶0053) surrounded by the main area, and a hole peripheral area (i.e., the area around CH) between the hole area CH and the main area;
a circuit layer (i.e., collectively the layers between 101 and 150) on the support substrate 101;
an element layer 150 (“light emitting element”- ¶0071) on the circuit layer;
a capping layer 171 (“insulating film”- ¶0078) on the element layer 150;
an encapsulation substrate 173 (“insulating film”- ¶0078) on the capping layer 171 and bonded to the support substrate 101;
a first hole peripheral dam 301 (“dam”- ¶0080) in the hole peripheral area and surrounding a periphery of the hole area CH;
a second hole peripheral dam 302 (“dam”- ¶0080) in the hole peripheral area and surrounding a periphery of the first hole peripheral dam 301; and
an auxiliary dam 214 (“structure”- ¶0082) in a valley area of the hole peripheral area between the first hole peripheral dam 301 and the second hole peripheral dam 302,
wherein a thickness of the auxiliary dam 214 is less than or equal to a thickness of the second hole peripheral dam 302, since Figure 6 of Han depicts dam 214 with a smaller thickness than dam 302 (A figure teaches everything it shows. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972)), and
the encapsulation substrate 173 contacts the capping layer 171 and is supported by the auxiliary dam 214 in the valley area, since 173 is in contact with layer 171 and is disposed on dam 214 as shown in Figure 6 of Han.
Regarding claim 2, Figures 1-6 of Han disclose wherein the second hole peripheral dam 302 is adjacent to the main area, and the auxiliary dam 214 is closer to the second hole peripheral dam 302 among the first hole peripheral dam 301 and the second hole peripheral dam 302.
Regarding claim 3, Figures 1-6 of Han disclose wherein the first hole peripheral dam 301 is arranged in a ring shape surrounding the periphery of the hole area CH, the auxiliary dam 214 is arranged in a ring shape surrounding the periphery of the first hole peripheral dam 301, and the second hole peripheral dam 302 is arranged in a ring shape surrounding a periphery of the auxiliary dam 214.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record including Han, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the auxiliary dam includes dot-shaped pillars arranged along the periphery of the first hole peripheral dam and spaced apart from each other”.
Regarding claim 5 (which claims 6-11 depend from), the prior art of record including Han, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] display device… further comprising: a light transmitting hole in the hole area and penetrating through the circuit layer, the element layer, and the capping layer; and a hole filling layer in an area surrounded by the first hole peripheral dam and filling the light transmitting hole”.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 12, the claim is allowed for reasons as previously indicated in line number 3 of the office action mailed in 6/26/2026.
Claims 13-20 are allowed as being dependent on allowed claim 12.
Conclusion
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 JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
