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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/662,824 filed on July 21, 2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Display Device Including Dam Structure Surrounded with Multiple Layers of Encapsulation”.
Election/Restrictions
6. Applicant’s election without traverse of device claims 1-15, Group I, in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
7. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected method claims, Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should be recited as follows to avoid indefiniteness because of the phrase ‘about’ having no definite limit or boundary:
4. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 3, wherein a glass transition temperature of the first dam is
5. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 3, wherein a density of the first dam is
6. (Currently Amended) The display device of claim 3, wherein a Young’s modulus of the first dam is
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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)(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.
11. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kwak et al. teaches a display device comprising (Figs. 1-2):
a substrate (110, para [0033]) comprising a display area (AA active area, para [0036]) and a first non-display area (NA, non-active area, para [0036]) around the display area (AA);
a light emitting element (140, para [0050]) on the display area (AA) of the substrate (110) in the display area (AA);
a lower inorganic encapsulation film (151, para [0071]) on the substrate (110) in the display area (AA) and the first non-display area (NA);
an organic encapsulation film (152, para [0071]) on the lower inorganic encapsulation film (151);
an upper inorganic encapsulation film (153, para [0071]) on the organic encapsulation film (152); and
a first dam (170, para [0047]) between the lower inorganic encapsulation film (151) and the upper inorganic encapsulation film (153) in the first non-display area (NA),
wherein a first side surface (right surface) of the first dam (170) is in contact with the organic encapsulation film (152), and
a second side surface (left surface) of the first dam (170) different from the first side surface (right surface) of the first dam (170) is in contact with the upper inorganic encapsulation film (153).
Regarding claim 2, Kwak et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), a lower surface of the first dam (170) is in contact with the lower inorganic encapsulation film (151).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
16. Claim 3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tai et al. (US 2003/0017360 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kwak et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the first dam comprises polysiloxane.
Tai et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), the dam (106, para [0020]) comprises polysiloxane (para [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Tai et al., and modify the dam material of Kwak et al., because poly-siloxane is advantageous as an insulating bank structure material, it can be processed from solution, whereas inorganic materials, such as SiO.sub.2, typically require expensive and time-consuming vacuum depositing processes such as thermal evaporation, electron-beam evaporation or sputtering (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends.
Tai et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), the dam (106, para [0020]) comprises polysiloxane (para [0020]) which is the same material as the applicant recites in claim 3 as the dam material, therefore, it would be obvious that the polysiloxane would possess either one of the three chemical formulas.
17. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1) in view of Tai et al. (US 2003/0017360 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sanagooy (US 2020/0002510 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. and Tai et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a glass transition temperature of the first dam is about -180°C to about -50°C.
Sanagooy teaches wherein (Table 1), a glass transition temperature of the composite material is about -180°C to about -50°C (-125°C, para [0043]). It would have been obvious to select intended ‘glass transition temperature’ to be within the quoted range, to make it suitable for use in the composite material. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed density or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen glass transition temperature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen glass transition temperature is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. and Tai et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a density of the first dam is about 0.05 g/mL to about 5 g/mL.
Sanagooy teaches wherein (Table 1), a density of the composite material is about 0.05 g/mL to about 5 g/mL (0.910-0.940, para [0043]). It would have been obvious to select intended ‘density’ to be within the quoted range, to make it suitable for use in the composite material. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed density or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen Young’s modulus or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen density is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 3 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. and Tai et al. are explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, a Young’s modulus of the first dam is about 0.01 MPa to about 1.0 MPa.
Sanagooy teaches wherein (Table 1), a Young’s modulus of the first dam is about 0.01 MPa to about 1.0 MPa (.30GPa or 300 MPa).
However, Sanagooy is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the Young’s modulus of the composite material is about 0.01 MPa to about 1.0 MPa. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘Young’s modulus’ to be within the quoted range, to make it suitable for use in the composite material. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed Young’s modulus or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen Young’s modulus or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen Young’s modulus is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
18. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeo et al. (US 2022/0199948 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kwak et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, further comprising a groove positioned between the light emitting element and the first dam.
Yeo et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 2), further comprising a groove (TR1 trench, para [0068]) positioned between the light emitting element (PX1 includes an light-emitting element) and the dam (DM, para [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Yeo et al., and modify the dam of Kwak et al. w/opening, in order to serve to prevent or substantially prevent an organic material for forming the first organic layer 172 from overflowing to the outside when the first organic layer 172 (para [0097]).
19. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1) in view of Tai et al. (US 2003/0017360 A1).
Regarding independent claim 12, Kwak et al. teaches a display device comprising (Figs. 1-2):
a substrate (110, para [0033]) comprising a display area (AA active area, para [0036]) and a first non-display area (NA non-active area [0036]) around an outer side of the display area (AA);
a lower inorganic encapsulation film (151, para [0071]) on the substrate (110) in the display area (AA) and the first non-display area (NA);
an organic encapsulation film (152, para [0071]) on the lower inorganic encapsulation film (151);
a first dam (170, para [0033]) on the substrate (110) in the first non-display area (NA), and
an upper inorganic encapsulation film (153, para [0071]) on the organic encapsulation film (152) and the first dam (170),
wherein a first side surface (right surface) of the first dam (170) overlaps the organic encapsulation film (152) in a plan view (see Fig. 1 while looking from top-view) of the substrate (110), and
a second side surface (left surface) of the first dam (170) different from the first side surface (right surface) of the first dam (170) does not overlap the organic encapsulation film (152) in the thickness direction of the substrate (110).
Kwak et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing wherein, the first dam comprising polysiloxane.
Tai et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), the dam (106, para [0020]) comprises polysiloxane (para [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Tai et al., and modify the dam material of Kwak et al., because poly-siloxane is advantageous as an insulating bank structure material, it can be processed from solution, whereas inorganic materials, such as SiO.sub.2, typically require expensive and time-consuming vacuum depositing processes such as thermal evaporation, electron-beam evaporation or sputtering (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 12 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), the first side surface and the second side surface of the first dam (170) overlap the upper inorganic encapsulation film (153) and the lower inorganic encapsulation film (151) in the thickness direction of the substrate (110).
Regarding claim 14, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 12 from which this claim depends.
Kwak et al. teaches wherein (Figs. 1-2), a component of the first dam (170) in an area adjacent to the substrate (110) and a component of the first dam (170) in an area adjacent to the upper inorganic encapsulation film (153) are the same (monolithic material) as each other.
Regarding claim 15, Kwak et al. and Tai et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 12 from which this claim depends.
Tai et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1B), the dam (106, para [0020]) comprises polysiloxane (para [0020]) which is the same material as the applicant recites in claim 12 as the dam material, therefore, it would be obvious that the polysiloxane would possess either one of the three chemical formulas.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 9-11 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.
Claim 9: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the display device comprising:
…. the substrate further comprises a through hole and a second non-display area between the through hole and the display area, the display device further comprises a first hole dam between the lower inorganic encapsulation film and the upper inorganic encapsulation film in the second non-display area, a first side surface of the first hole dam is in contact with the organic encapsulation film, and a second side surface of the first hole dam different from the first side surface of the first hole dam is in contact with the upper inorganic encapsulation film.
21. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Kwak et al. (US 2023/0403911 A1) discloses the display device, however, Kwak et al. does not depict the elements as claimed in the limitations above, therefore, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above limitations in the section 20.
Examiner’s Note
22. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
24. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights