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. More specifically, the request for foreign priority to KR10-2023-0154042 (filed November 9th, 2023) is acknowledged. However, should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on June 3rd, 2024, is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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 abstract is objected to for failing to be in narrative form. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure: The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, et al. (US 20230008950 A1; hereinafter referred to as Han950) and further in view of Park, et al. (US 20240224775 A1; hereinafter referred to as Park).
Regarding Claim 1, Han950 discloses a display device (display device 100, [0056], Fig. 1B) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 301, [0060], Fig. 1B);
a first electrode on the substrate (first electrode 313, [0108], Fig. 3);
a pixel-defining layer on the first electrode (pixel-defining layer 316, [0110], Fig. 3);
an emissive layer on the first electrode and the pixel-defining layer (intermediate layer 314, [[0112-0113], Fig. 3);
a second electrode on the emissive layer (second electrode 315, [0115], Fig. 3);
an encapsulation layer on the second electrode (thin-film encapsulation layer (TFE) 130, [0060], Fig. 3);
a functional layer on the encapsulation layer (functional film 140, [0120], Fig. 3).
Han fails to disclose the display device further comprising a reinforcement layer between the encapsulation layer and the functional layer, and wherein an interface between the reinforcement layer and the functional layer is substantially flat.
However, in analogous art, Park discloses the display device further comprising a reinforcement layer between the encapsulation layer and the functional layer (Park: buffer layer 160, [0060], Fig. 3; buffer layer 160 is between encapsulation layer 140 and the black matrices/color filters which together would form a functional layer),
wherein an interface between the reinforcement layer and the functional layer is substantially flat (Park: Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Han950 to further include a reinforcement layer as disclosed by Park. One would be motivated to do so as the buffer [reinforcement] layer can compensate for a decrease in adhesive strength between the functional layer and the encapsulation layer when an adhesive layer is not being used (Park: [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the functional layer comprises a polarizer (Han950: polarizing layer 142, [0121-0122], Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a protective layer disposed under the substrate (Han950: protective film 75, [0164], Fig. 4K).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han950/Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Wang, et al. (CN 114815386 A; hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding Claim 2, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1.
The combination of Han950/Park fails to disclose wherein the reinforcement layer contains hydrofluoric acid.
However, in analogous art, Wang discloses the use of a layer in a display device containing hydrofluoric acid (Wang: [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the reinforcement layer of Han950/Park such that said reinforcement layer contained hydrofluoric acid as disclosed by Wang. One would be motivated to do so because this allows for the part to contain the hydrofluoric acid to be thinned continuously in the vertical direction, which leads to a more efficient and less complicated thinning/etching process, along with no pollutants being generated (Wang: [0147]).
Regarding Claim 3, Han950/Park/Wang discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein a first side surface of the reinforcement layer contains the hydrofluoric acid (Wang: [0147], which states that a side of the layer that is being etched contains the hydrofluoric acid).
Regarding Claim 4, Han950/Park/Wang discloses the display device of claim 3, further comprising:
a display driver disposed in a pad area on the substrate (Han950: display driving unit (display driver) 52, [0070-0072], Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 5, Han950/Park/Wang discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the first side surface of the reinforcement layer is adjacent to the display driver (Han950: Fig. 1B; Wang: [0147], the surface adjacent to the display driver is the area being etched and, therefore, the first side surface of the reinforcement layer would be adjacent to the display driver).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han950/Park/Wang as applied to claims 2-5 above, and further in view of Choi, et al. (US 20200313114 A1; hereinafter referred to as Choi114).
Regarding Claim 6, Han950/Park/Wang discloses the display device of claim 3.
The combination of Han950/Park/Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a second side surface of the reinforcement layer located opposite to the first side surface of the reinforcement layer comprises a carbonization region.
However, in analogous art, Choi114 discloses wherein a second side surface of the reinforcement layer located opposite to the first side surface of the reinforcement layer (Choi114: resin layer RL, [0094], Fig. 5) comprises a carbonization region (Choi: light shielding pattern BZ, [0094], Fig. 5; said BZ is formed through a carbonization reaction of the resin layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the reinforcement layer as disclosed by Han950/Park/ Wang such that the reinforcement layer comprises a carbonization region on a second side surface of the reinforcement layer. One would be motivated to do so because bubbles or the like generated in the layers located above the carbonization region may be reduced or effectively prevented, thus improving device reliability (Choi114: [0094]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han950/Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Sunwoo, et al. (US 20230044519 A1; hereinafter referred to as Sunwoo).
Regarding Claim 7, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1.
The combination of Han950/Park fails to disclose wherein the reinforcement layer is made of a material containing at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, and urethane.
However, in analogous art, Sunwoo discloses a reinforcement layer (Sunwoo: buffer layer 400, [0070]) is made of a material containing at least one of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, and urethane (Sunwoo: [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the reinforcement layer of Han950/Park such that it was made of an optically transparent resin, epoxy, or urethane as disclosed by Sunwoo. One would be motivated to do so because a layer buffer/reinforcement layer being made of said materials will have the same refractive index as glass while still being durable enough to provide shock resistance to the device, thus increasing device reliability (Sunwoo: [0070-0072]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han950/Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Han, et al. (US 20230354686 A1; hereinafter referred to as Han686).
Regarding Claim 9, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1.
The combination of Han950/Park fails to disclose the display device further comprising an auxiliary functional layer on the functional layer.
However, in analogous art, Han686 discloses a display device further comprising:
an auxiliary functional layer on the functional layer (Han686: [0074], Fig.5; the window WM of Han686 is multilayered with the top layer being a protective layer which includes “a functional layer such as a hard coating layer, an anti-fingerprint coating layer, an anti-static coating layer, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Han950/Park such that an additional, auxiliary functional layer was disposed on top of the functional layer as disclosed by Han686. It would have been obvious because the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine such elements, as shown in Han686, and each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., performs the intended effect of being an anti-fingerprint coating layer, an anti-static coating layer, etc.). Since the elements function separately, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness can be made. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 10, Han950/Park/Han686 discloses the display device of claim 9, wherein the auxiliary functional layer comprises at least one of an anti-fingerprint layer, an anti-reflection layer, and a hard coating layer (Han686: [0074]).
Regarding Claim 11, Han950/Park/Han686 discloses the display device of claim 9, further comprising:
a window layer between the functional layer and the auxiliary functional layer (Han686: [0074]; the window layer of Han686 comprises a base layer and a protective film, the base layer is the window layer of the instant application and the protective film is the auxiliary functional layer of the instant application and, therefore, the base [window] layer is between the functional layer and the protective film [auxiliary functional layer]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han950/Park as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Choi, et al. (US 20220246886 A1; hereinafter referred to as Choi886).
Regarding Claim 12, Han950/Park discloses the display device of claim 1.
The combination of Han950/Park fails to disclose the display device further comprising an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate, as Han950 merely uses the substrate to bend and connect the display device to the circuit board.
However, in analogous art, Choi886 discloses a display device further comprising an intermediate board connected to a pad area of the substrate (Choi886: flexible printed circuit board FPCB, [0076], Fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Han950/Park such that an intermediate board is used instead of bending the substrate as disclosed by Choi886. One would be motivated to do so to increase production efficiency as the substrate no longer needs to be flexible in order to connect to a printed circuit board located below the display device as the flexible printed circuit board [intermediate board] can be the flexible material used (Choi886: [0076-0077]).
Regarding Claim 13, Han950/Park/Choi886 discloses the display device of claim 12, further comprising:
a circuit board connected to the intermediate board (Choi886: printed circuit board PCB, [0077], Fig. 3A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Seo, et al. (US 20220402235 A1); discloses an analogous flexible display panel
(b) Lee, et al. (US 20170210915 A1); discloses a resin composition for a polarizer protective film, a polarizer protective film, and a polarizing plate comprising the same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights