DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/21/24 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Bok (US 2022/0209187).
As to claim 1, Bok teaches a display device (1, fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (100) comprising a display area (DA) surrounding a through hole (OA), and a middle area (MA) between the through hole (OA) and the display area (DA, [0062] – [0063]);
a light-emitting element (Fig. 6, OLED, [0126]- [0130]) on the display area of the substrate, and comprising:
a pixel electrode (221);
an emissive layer (222) on the pixel electrode (221); and
a common electrode on the emissive layer (223);
an edge structure (600, fig. 19) on the middle area of the substrate ([0189]), and comprising a lower metal stack (611, 612, 613, and 621) and an upper metal stack (622 and 623, [0196]); and
a first inorganic encapsulation film (310, figs. 16, 19, and 21) on the light-emitting element (OLED) and the edge structure (600, [0164]), wherein:
the lower metal stack comprises a first sub-metal layer (m1), a second sub-metal layer (m2) on the first sub-metal layer (m1), and a third sub-metal layer (m3) on the second sub-metal layer (m2, ([0196], see annotated figs. 19 and/or 21 below);
the upper metal stack is on the lower metal stack, and comprises a fourth sub-metal layer (m4) on the third sub-metal layer (m3), and a fifth sub-metal layer (m5) on the fourth sub-metal layer (m4, [0196], see annotated figs. 19 and/or 21 below);
a width (w1) of the first sub-metal layer (611) is greater than a width (w3) of the third sub-metal layer (621, see annotated figs. 19 and/or 21 below);
the width (w3) of the third sub-metal layer (621) is greater than a width (w2) of the second sub-metal layer (612, see annotated figs. 19 and/or 21 below); and
a width (w5) of the fifth sub-metal layer (623) is greater than a width (w4) of the fourth sub-metal layer (622, see annotated figs. 19 and/or 21 below).
It is noted that there are two interpretations of the sub-metal layers and their respective widths for the dependent claims. Both are annotated and shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
741
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Bok further teaches (in fig. 21) the width (w4) of the fourth sub-metal layer is greater than the width (w2) of the second sub-metal layer (see above).
As to claim 4, Bok further teaches (in fig. 19) a thickness of the fourth sub-metal layer (m4) is greater than a thickness of the fifth sub-metal layer (m5).
As to claim 7, Bok further teaches a thin-film transistor (TFT, fig. 6) between the substrate (100) and the light-emitting element (OLED)in the display area (DA, [0107]), and comprising a semiconductor layer (Act), a source electrode (SE), a drain electrode (DE), and a gate electrode (GE, [0108]), wherein the source electrode and the drain electrode comprise: a layer comprising a same material as that of the first sub-metal layer; a layer comprising a same material as that of the second sub-metal layer; and a layer comprising a same material as that of the third sub-metal layer ([0199]).
As to claim 8, Bok further teaches an organic encapsulation film (320) on the first inorganic encapsulation film (310, [0133]);
a second inorganic encapsulation film (330) on the organic encapsulation film (320, [0133]); and
a first dam (pw) between the substrate (100) and the first inorganic encapsulation film (310) in the middle area (MA, [0144]), wherein the first dam comprises
a first side surface (right side of pw) facing the through hole (OA), and
a second side surface (left side of pw) opposite to the first side surface (right side of pw), and
wherein the first inorganic encapsulation film (310) and the second inorganic encapsulation film (330) are in contact with each other on the first side surface (left side of pw) of the first dam (pw, fig. 16).
As to claim 9, Bok further teaches the organic encapsulation film (320) is on the second side surface of the first dam (right side of pw, fig. 16).
As to claim 10, Bok further teaches the edge structure (600) is between the first dam (pw) and the through hole (OA, fig. 16).
As to claim 11, Bok further teaches the edge structure (600) overlaps with the organic encapsulation film (320) in a thickness direction of the substrate (100, fig. 16, the organic layer 320 extends past the edge structure).
As to claim 12, Bok further teaches the first sub-metal layer, the third sub-metal layer, and the fifth sub-metal layer comprise titanium (Ti), and wherein the second sub-metal layer and the fourth sub-metal layer comprise aluminum (Al)([0199] – [0200]).
As to claim 16, Bok further teaches the substrate (100) comprises an inclined surface toward the through hole (G2, fig. 16, groove G2 extends into the substrate and has inclined sidewalls).
As to claim 17, Bok further teaches an optical device (70) located in the through hole ([0075] – [0076]).
As to claim 18, Bok teaches a display device (1, fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (100) comprising a display area (DA) surrounding a through hole (OA), and a middle area (MA) between the through hole (OA) and the display area (DA, [0062] – [0063]);
a light-emitting element (Fig. 6, OLED, [0126]- [0130]) on the display area of the substrate, and comprising:
a pixel electrode (221);
an emissive layer (222) on the pixel electrode (221); and
a common electrode on the emissive layer (223);
an edge structure (600, fig. 19) on the middle area of the substrate ([0189]), and comprising a lower metal stack (611, 612, 613, and 621) and an upper metal stack (622 and 623, [0196]);
a first inorganic encapsulation film (310 and 401-403) on the light-emitting element (OLED) and the edge structure (600, [0133] – 310 is inorganic; [0138] – 401/402/403 is inorganic), wherein:
the lower metal stack comprises a first sub-metal layer (m1), a second sub-metal layer (m2) on the first sub-metal layer (m1), and a third sub-metal layer (m3) on the second sub-metal layer (m2, see interpretation 3 below);
the upper metal stack is on the lower metal stack, and comprises a fourth sub-metal layer (m4) on the third sub-metal layer (m3), and a fifth sub-metal layer (m5) on the fourth sub-metal layer (m4, see interpretation 3 below);
a thickness of the fourth sub-metal layer (m4) is greater than a thickness of the fifth sub-metal layer (m5); and
the first inorganic encapsulation film (310 and 401-403) is in contact with a lower surface of the third sub-metal layer (m3), and a lower surface and an upper surface of the fifth sub-metal layer (m5, see interpretation 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
741
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 13-15, 19, and 20 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 taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims.
As to claims 2 and 19, Bok fails to teach the edge structure comprises an inorganic layer between the lower metal stack and the upper metal stack, and wherein a width of the inorganic layer is greater than or equal to the width of the third sub-metal layer. The inorganic layer covers the layers. It is not located between the layers.
As to claim 5, Bok teaches a pixel-defining layer (215) on the display area (DA) of the substrate (100), and exposing at least a part of the pixel electrode (fig. 6).
Bok fails to teach a first bank layer on the pixel-defining layer; and a second bank layer on the first bank layer, and comprising a side surface protruding from a side surface of the first bank layer, wherein the first bank layer comprises a same material as that of the fourth sub-metal layer, and wherein the second bank layer comprises a same material as that of the fifth sub-metal layer.
As to claim 20, Bok fails to teach a width of the fourth sub-metal layer is greater than a width of the second sub-metal layer.
The remaining claims are allowable at least because they depend from allowable claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
6/7/26
Prosecution Insights