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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (US 2021/0202853).
Regarding claim 1, An discloses, in FIG. 1 and in related text, a display device comprising:
a first substrate (110, 410, 120, 420) comprising a first surface (110a) and a second surface (120a) facing each other and having a rigid material (glass);
a second substrate (200) on the first surface (110a) of the first substrate and having a flexible material (see An, [0051], [0056]-[0057]); and
a display layer (310, 320) on the second substrate (200) and comprising at least one inorganic film (320) and a plurality of light-emitting elements (self-light emitting diode) (see An, [0072], [0081]), wherein
the first substrate, at an edge of a bending area (BA) where the second substrate is bent (see An, FIGS. 2-3, [0054]), further comprises:
a first side surface (side surface of 410) between the first surface (110a) and the second surface (120a); and
a first inclined surface (110b) between the first surface (110a) and the first side surface (side surface of 410), and
the at least one inorganic film (320) does not overlap with the first inclined surface (110b) (see An, FIG. 2, [0058]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2021/0202853) in view of Kim (US 2021/0359274).
Regarding claim 1, An discloses, in FIG. 2 and in related text, a display device comprising:
a first substrate (110, 410, 120, 420) comprising a first surface (110a) and a second surface (120a) facing each other and having a rigid material (glass);
a second substrate (200) on the first surface (110a) of the first substrate and having a flexible material (see An, [0051], [0056]-[0057]); and
a display layer (pixel array 310) on the second substrate (200) and comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements (self-light emitting diode) (see An, [0072]), wherein
the first substrate, at an edge of a bending area (BA) where the second substrate is bent (see An, FIGS. 2-3, [0054]), further comprises:
a first side surface (side surface of 410) between the first surface (110a) and the second surface (120a); and
a first inclined surface (110b) between the first surface and the first side surface (see An, FIG. 2, [0058]).
An discloses a display layer (pixel layer 310).
An does not explicitly disclose a display layer comprising at least one inorganic film; the at least one inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface.
Kim teaches a display layer (PCL and OLED) comprising at least one inorganic film (110) (see Kim, FIG. 3, [0052], [0060]). Since An discloses the display layer (310) does not overlap with the first inclined surface (110b) (see An, FIG. 2, [0072]), Kim together with An teaches the at least one inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface.
An and Kim are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify An with the features of Kim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify An to include a display layer comprising at least one inorganic film; the at least one inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface, as taught by Kim, to prevent impurities from penetrating from substrate (see Kim, [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1.
An discloses wherein the display layer (310) does not overlap with the bending area (BA) (see An, FIG. 2). Since Kim teaches the display area comprising the at least one inorganic film (see discussion on claim 1 above), Kim together with An teaches wherein the at least one inorganic film does not overlap with the bending area, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1.
An discloses wherein the first substrate (110, 120, 410, 420) further comprises an opening (between 410 and 420, and between 110 and 120) exposing the second substrate (200), and the edge of the bending area (BA) is located on each of both sides of the opening (see An, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1.
An discloses wherein an outermost end (left end) of the display layer (310), the outermost end adjacent to the bending area (BA), is spaced apart from a boundary where the first inclined surface (110b) meets the first surface (at E1) by a first distance (“A”) in a horizontal direction (see An, [0084] and annotations of FIG. 2 below).
Since Kim teaches the display area comprising the at least one inorganic film (see discussion on claim 1 above), Kim together with An teaches an outermost end of the at least one inorganic film (same as the outermost end of the display layer), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 4.
An discloses wherein an end of the first substrate (at E2) in the bending area (BA) is spaced apart from the outermost end of the display layer (310) by a second distance (“B”) in the horizontal direction (see An, [0060] and annotation of FIG. 2 above).
Kim together with An teaches the outermost end of the at least one inorganic film (same as the outermost end of the display layer) (see discussion on claim 4 above), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 5.
An discloses wherein a length of the first inclined surface (110b) in the horizontal direction is a first length (“C”), and the second distance (“B”) is equal to a sum of the first distance (“A”) and the first length (“C”) (see An, annotation of FIG. 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1.
An discloses an encapsulation layer (320) on the display layer (310) and comprising at least one inorganic encapsulation film (see An, FIG. 2, [0081]),
An discloses wherein the display layer (310) does not overlap with the first inclined surface (110b) (in horizontal direction) (see An, FIG. 2).
Since Kim teaches the display area comprising the at least one inorganic film (see discussion on claim 1 above), Kim together with An teaches wherein the at least one inorganic encapsulation film does not overlap with the first inclined surface, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1.
An discloses wherein the first substrate (110) comprises glass, and the second substrate (200) comprises a polymer resin (polyimide) (see An, [0051], [0071]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Kim, and further in view of Lim (US 2022/0077256).
Regarding claim 18, An in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 17.
An discloses a sensor layer (330) on the encapsulation layer (320), wherein the sensor layer does not overlap with the first inclined surface (110b) (see An, FIG. 2, [0072]).
An does not explicitly disclose a sensor layer comprising at least one sensor inorganic film, wherein the at least one sensor inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface.
Lim teaches a sensor layer (TRL) comprising at least one sensor inorganic film (TINS) (see Lim, FIG. 7, [0153]-[0155]). Since An discloses wherein the sensor layer does not overlap with the first inclined surface, Lim together with An teaches wherein the at least one sensor inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface.
An and Lim are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify An with the features of Lim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify An to include a sensor layer comprising at least one sensor inorganic film, wherein the at least one sensor inorganic film does not overlap with the first inclined surface, as taught by Lim, to provide an insulating layer (see Lim, [0155]).
Claims 20-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (US 2021/0202853) in view of Kim (US 2021/0359274) and Lim (US 2022/0077256).
Regarding claim 20, An discloses, in FIG. 2 and in related text, a display device comprising:
a first substrate (110, 410, 120, 420) comprising a first surface (110a) and a second surface (120a) facing each other and having a rigid material (glass);
a second substrate (200) on the first surface (110a) of the first substrate and having a flexible material (see An, [0051], [0056]-[0057]);
a display layer (310) on the second substrate (200) comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements (self-light emitting diode) (see An, [0072]);
an encapsulation layer (320) on the display layer (320) and comprising at least one encapsulation inorganic film (see An, [0081]); and
a sensor layer (330) on the encapsulation layer (320) (see An, [0072]), wherein
the display layer (310), the inorganic encapsulation film (320), and the sensor layer (330) constitute a film group,
the first substrate, at an edge of a bending area (BA) where the second substrate is bent (see An, FIGS. 2-3, [0054]), further comprises:
a first side surface (side surface of 410) between the first surface (110a) and the second surface (120a); and
a first inclined surface (110b) between the first surface and the first side surface (see An, FIG. 2, [0058]), and
the film group (310, 320, 330) does not overlap with the first inclined surface (110b) (see An, FIG. 2).
An does not explicitly disclose
a display layer comprising at least one display inorganic film;
a sensor layer comprising at least one sensor inorganic film;
the display inorganic film, the inorganic encapsulation film, and the sensor inorganic film constitute an inorganic film group;
the inorganic film group does not overlap with the first inclined surface.
Kim teaches a display layer (PCL and OLED) comprising at least one inorganic film (110) (see Kim, FIG. 3, [0052], [0060]).
An and Kim are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify An with the features of Kim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify An to include a display layer comprising at least one display inorganic film, as taught by Kim, to prevent impurities from penetrating from substrate (see Kim, [0060]).
Lim teaches a sensor layer (TRL) comprising at least one sensor inorganic film (TINS) (see Lim, FIG. 7, [0153]-[0155]).
An and Lim are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify An with the features of Lim because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify An to include a sensor layer comprising at least one sensor inorganic film, as taught by Lim, to provide an insulating layer (see Lim, [0155]).
Since An discloses the display layer, the inorganic encapsulation film, and the sensor layer constitute a film group, the film group does not overlap with the first inclined surface, and Kim teaches the display layer comprising the at least one display inorganic film, Lim teaches the sensor layer comprising the at least one sensor inorganic film, Kim, Lim together with An teaches the display inorganic film, the inorganic encapsulation film, and the sensor inorganic film constitute an inorganic film group; the inorganic film group does not overlap with the first inclined surface, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided above.
Regarding claim 21, An in view of Kim and Lim teaches the device of claim 20.
An in view of Kim and Lim teaches wherein the inorganic film group (310, 320, 330) does not overlap with the bending area (BA) (see An, FIG. 2, [0054]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 20.
Regarding claim 25, An in view of Kim and Lim teaches the device of claim 20.
An in view of Kim and Lim teaches wherein an outermost end of the inorganic film group (310, 320, 330), the outermost end adjacent to the bending area (BA), is spaced apart from a boundary (E1) where the first inclined surface (110b) meets the first surface (110a) by a first distance (“A”) in a horizontal direction (see An, annotation of FIG. 2 below), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 20.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, An in view of Kim and Lim teaches the device of claim 25.
An in view of Kim and Lim teaches wherein an end (E2) of the first substrate in the bending area is spaced apart from the outermost end of the inorganic film group (310, 320, 330) by a second distance (“B”) in the horizontal direction (see An, annotation of FIG. 2 above), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 20.
Regarding claim 27, An in view of Kim and Lim teaches the device of claim 65.
An in view of Kim and Lim teaches wherein a length of the first inclined surface (110b) in the horizontal direction is a first length (“C”), and the second distance (“B”) is equal to a sum of the first distance (“A) and the first length (“C”) (see An, annotation of FIG. 2 above), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16, 22-24 and 28-31 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 of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein a minimum value of the second distance is equal to a sum of the first distance and an average of the first length” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 7.
The prior art of record, An, discloses a distance between ends at edges of the first substrate in the bending area is a third distance. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a maximum value of the second distance satisfies Equation 1 below: Equation 1 Max(D2)=μ(L1)+3σ(L1)+3σ(D3), and Max(D2) denotes the maximum value of the second distance, μ(L1) denotes an average of the first length, σ(L1) denotes a deviation of the first length, and σ(D3) denotes a deviation of the third distance” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 10.
The prior art of record, An, discloses a display area in which the plurality of light-emitting elements is located; a non-display area between the display area and the bending area. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a first dam between the plurality of light-emitting elements and the bending area; a bank structure in at least one of the non-display area and the bending area” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 22.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein a minimum value of the second distance is equal to a sum of the first distance and an average of the first length” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 28.
The prior art of record, An, discloses a distance between ends at edges of the first substrate in the bending area is a third distance. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a maximum value of the second distance satisfies Equation 1 below: Equation 1 Max(D2)=μ(L1)+3σ(L1)+3σ(D3), and Max(D2) denotes the maximum value of the second distance, μ(L1) denotes an average of the first length, σ(L1) denotes a deviation of the first length, and σ(D3) denotes a deviation of the third distance” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights