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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 4/17/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim utilizes grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day as a unit measurement for the water vapor transmission rate. This should be in metric (S.I.) units of g/m2/day (see MPEP §608.01.IV).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, claim states that “water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the sealing glue is 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day” in both lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear because the US units for water vapor transmission rates are in g/100in2/day1 and International units are in g/m2/day, not grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day – assuming that US units are intended, converting the given claim values to International units yields a range of 0.32 g/m2/day to 4.4 g/m2/day. If US units are not intended as indicated by the mil unit included, how are these transmission rates being measured such that the units for them are different from both US and International units? Due to the difference in units, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will utilize International units to meet the claim limitations.
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, 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Momose et. al US 20060139563 (hereinafter “Momose”).
Regarding claim 1, Momose a display device (Momose fig. 1 - 100), comprising:
a first substrate (Momose fig. 1-2 - 10) comprising a conductive pad (Momose fig. 1 - 54, see also para. 0156);
a second substrate (Momose fig. 1-2 - 20) opposite to the first substrate (Momose fig. 1 - 20 is opposite 10);
a display layer (Momose fig. 1 - 4) disposed between the first substrate (10) and the second substrate (Momose para. 0156 - 4 is disposed on 10 which is below 20 as shown in fig. 2); and
a sealing glue (Momose fig. 1 - 52) disposed between the first substrate (10) and the second substrate (20) and surrounding the display layer (Momose fig. 1 - 52 surrounds 4, fig. 2 - 52 is between 10 and 20), wherein the sealing glue (52) has a conductive portion (Momose fig. 1 - 52b), and the conductive portion (52b) is in contact with the conductive pad (Momose para. 0159).
Regarding claim 2, Momose teaches the display device (100) according to claim 1, and Momose further teaches wherein the sealing glue (Momose fig. 1 - 52) further has a sealed portion (Momose fig. 1 – 52a), and the sealed portion (52a) surrounds the conductive portion (Momose fig. 1 – 52b) and the display layer (Momose fig. 1 – 52a surrounds 52b and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Momose teaches the display device (100) according to claim 2, and Momose further teaches wherein a material of the sealing glue (52) comprises a sealing material (Momose para. 0163), the conductive portion (52b) comprises conductive particles (Momose para. 0159 – 52b contains conductive particles), and the conductive particles are distributed in the sealing material (Momose para. 0159-0162).
Regarding claim 6, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Momose does not explicitly state wherein a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the sealing glue is 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day, however the claimed structure of the display device is shown in figure 1 of Momose’s display device and is substantially identical to the display device of claim 1. Because the display device structure is substantially identical, the properties of said structure would be the same (MPEP §2112.01). Therefore, the value for the water vapor transmission rate of the sealing glue would fall within the claimed range of 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day since it is an anticipated property of the substantially identical structure.
Regarding claim 7, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Momose further teaches wherein the second substrate (Momose fig. 1 - 20) comprises an electrode layer (Momose fig. 3 – 57, see also para. 0159), and the conductive portion (52b) is in contact with the electrode layer (Momose para. 0159).
Regarding claim 8, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 7, and Momose further teaches wherein the electrode layer (57) and the conductive pad (54) are electrically connected through the conductive portion (Momose para. 0159).
Regarding claim 10, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 1, and Momose further teaches wherein a width of the sealing glue (52) measured from the conductive portion (52b) outward to an outer edge of the sealing glue is 0 mm to 0.5 mm (Momose para. 0380 – the width of the sealing member is 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Okamoto US Patent 6,147,738 (hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Regarding claim 4, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 3.
Momose does not explicitly state wherein the conductive particles account for 70% wt to 80% wt of the sealing glue, however Momose does teach the conductive particles (Momose para. 0159).
In the same field of endeavor, Okamoto teaches wherein the conductive particles account for 70% wt to 80% wt of the sealing glue (Okamoto abstract, see also col. 3 lines 54-64 – teaches 50% wt to 80% wt which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of controlling the sheet resistance (Okamoto col. 3 lines 62-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conductive particles account for 70% wt to 80% wt of the sealing glue as taught by Okamoto in the display device of Momose in order to control the sheet resistance (Okamoto col. 3 lines 62-64).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Seo et. al US 20190119528 (hereinafter “Seo”).
Regarding claim 6, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Momose does not explicitly state wherein a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the sealing glue is 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches wherein a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the sealing glue is 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day (Seo para. 0039 – teaches a WVTR of 1.0 g/
m
2
∙
24hr to 50 g/
m
2
∙
24hr which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of implementing an excellent barrier performance (Seo para. 0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of the sealing glue is 5 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day to 68 grams
∙
mil/100
i
n
c
h
e
s
2
∙
day as taught by Seo in the display device of Momose in order to implement an excellent barrier performance (Seo para. 0108).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momose as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Sano et. al US 20170176808 (hereinafter “Sano”).
Regarding claim 5, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 4.
Momose does not specify wherein a material of the conductive particles is selected from silver, copper, or gold, however Momose does teach that the conductive particles may be metal particles or the like (Momose para. 0162).
In the same field of endeavor, Sano teaches specify wherein a material of the conductive particles is selected from silver, copper, or gold (Sano para. 0055 - gold) for the purpose of establishing an electrical connection between the connection line and pad electrode (Sano para. 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a material of the conductive particles is selected from silver, copper, or gold as taught by Sano in the display device of Momose in order to establish an electrical connection between the connection line and pad electrode (Sano para. 0055).
Regarding claim 9, Momose teaches the display device according to claim 1.
Momose does not teach wherein a resistivity of the conductive portion is less than 5×
10
-
4
ohm
∙
cm, however Momose does teach that the conductive particles may be metal particles or the like (Momose para. 0162).
In the same field of endeavor, Sano teaches wherein a resistivity of the conductive portion is less than 5×
10
-
4
ohm
∙
cm (Sano para. 0055 – teaches that the conductive particles may be made of or coated with gold, which has a resistivity of about 2.44×
10
-
6
ohm
∙
cm)2 for the purpose of establishing an electrical connection between the connection line and pad electrode (Sano para. 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a resistivity of the conductive portion is less than 5×
10
-
4
ohm
∙
cm as taught by Sano in the display device of Momose in order to establish an electrical connection between the connection line and pad electrode (Sano para. 0055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Momose et. al US Patent 9,599,861, patent of Momose et. al US 20060139563;
Seo et. al US Patent 10,633,561, patent of Seo et. al US 20190119528.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 “Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Feb. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisture_vapor_transmission_rate.
2 “Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Feb. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity.