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 § 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.
Claims 1 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.
Claim 1 lines 18-19 recite “a first structure disposed in an outermost region of the substrate among the plurality of structures”. It is unclear whether the first structure is to be considered one of the plurality of structures originally recited in claim 1 lines 14-15 or if the first structure is a further structure than the plurality of structures. Examiner is interpreting this limitation using the former interpretation.
Claim 3 lines 2-3 recite “the first structure among the plurality of structures”. If examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 is incorrect, then this limitation fails to have antecedent basis in the previous claims.
Claim 19 lines 3-4 recite “a plurality of structures more adjacent to the display area”. It is unclear to examiner whether the phrase “more adjacent” is intended to mean “closer to” the display area or “further from” the display area. Examiner is interpreting this limitation using the former interpretation.
Examiner notes that based on their claim dependencies, claims 2, 4-16, and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC §112(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220209183 (Jeon et al) and US 20210193744 (Gwon et al).
As to Claim 1: Jeon teaches an electroluminescent display device, comprising:
a substrate including a display area and a non-display area adjacent to the display area (Jeon Fig 13 EA and CA respectively);
a plurality of transistors disposed in the display area on the substrate (transistor Tdr);
a light emitting diode connected to the plurality of transistors and including an anode, an emission layer, and a cathode (EDL comprising PE, ED, and CE respectively);
an encapsulation layer disposed on the light emitting diode and including a first inorganic encapsulation layer, an organic encapsulation layer disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer disposed on the organic encapsulation layer (106 comprising 106a/b/c, respectively); and
a plurality of structures disposed in the non-display area on the substrate (104 and 105a in CA)
Jeon fails to explicitly teach wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer is separated with respect to a first structure disposed in an outermost region of the substrate among the plurality of structures.
Gwon discloses a device similar to that of Jeon, and explicitly shows wherein a first inorganic encapsulation layer and a second inorganic encapsulation layer are separated with respect to a first structure disposed in an outermost region of the substrate among the plurality of structures (Gwon Fig 12, 281 and 282 split at first structure DAM1).
It would have been obvious to combine the device of Jeon with the split of the first and second inorganic encapsulation layers at a first structure taught by Gwon. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing.
As to Claim 2: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein an end of the substrate overlaps an end of the emission layer, an end of the first inorganic encapsulation layer, and an end of the second inorganic encapsulation layer (those ends on the boundary between EA and CA as seen in Fig 13).
As to Claim 3: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1. Jeon further teaches wherein the first structure among the plurality of structures includes a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer (Fig 14 104d and 104f respectively), and
wherein a lower surface of the second layer has a greater size than an upper surface of the first layer (as shown in Fig 14).
As to Claim 4: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 3. Jeon teaches the device further comprising:
an insulating layer disposed on the substrate and covering upper portions of the plurality of transistors (102),
wherein the first layer is made of a same material as the insulating layer, and the second layer is made of a same material as the anode (104d and 102 may be a same material ¶0377; 104f may be a same material as PE ¶0385).
As to Claim 5: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 4. Jeon further teaches wherein the anode includes:
a first anode in which a layer made of indium tin oxide (ITO), a layer made of an molybdenum-titanium (MoTi) alloy, and a layer made of ITO are laminated, and
a second anode which is disposed on the first anode and in which a layer made of ITO, a layer made of silver (Ag) or an Ag alloy, and a layer made of ITO are laminated (PE may be a five layer structure comprised of ITO/MoTi/ITO/Ag/ITO. Examiner is considering the structure ITO/MoTi/ITO to be first anode, and ITO/Ag/ITO to be second anode. This second anode still comprises a shared ITO layer between first and second anodes), and
wherein the second layer is made of a same material as the first anode (both contain ITO).
As to Claim 6: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1. Jeon teaches the device further comprising:
a dummy structure overlapping an end of the substrate (105b),
wherein the dummy structure has a shape corresponding to a part of the first structure (has a same shape as 104).
As to Claim 11: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1. Jeon teaches the device further comprising:
a flexible film bonded to one surface of the substrate (Fig 7 500),
wherein the first structure is disposed on other surfaces of the substrate except the one surface of the substrate on which the flexible film is disposed (structures otherwise described along cutline I-I’ which are on a different side than 500).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Gwon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the embodiment of Jeon Figs 10/11.
As to Claim 7: the combination of Jeon and Gwon as applied above teaches electroluminescent display device according to claim 1. In addition, Jeon discloses an additional embodiment shown in Figs. 10/11 comprising:
wherein the plurality of structures includes a second structure, a third structure disposed outside the second structure, and a fourth structure disposed between the third structure and the first structure (Fig 11 shows 105a/104/105b respectively),
wherein the second structure is same as the fourth structure (105a/105b have same structure), and
wherein the third structure has a greater height than the second structure and the fourth structure (104 taller than 105a/105b).
It would have been obvious to combine the device taught by Jeon and Gwon as applied to claim 1 with the embodiment taught by Jeon in Figs. 10/11. Both embodiments teach different structures configured to control the flow of fluids towards and away from the device, and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been able to combine the structures in those embodiments to optimize reliability of the device.
As to Claim 8: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 7. The embodiment of Jeon Figs 10/11 shows the structure further comprising:
a passivation layer disposed on the substrate and covering upper portions of the plurality of transistors (Fig 10 PAS);
a planarization layer disposed on the passivation layer so as to planarize an upper portion of the passivation layer (102 described as a planarization layer ¶0069); and
a bank disposed on the planarization layer and the anode (MK on ED, shown in Fig 10 but seen more clearly in Fig 9),
wherein each of the second structure and the fourth structure has a structure in which a same material as the passivation layer and a same material as the anode are laminated (Fig 10, BP1 may comprise same material as PAS ¶0340 and BP2 may comprise same material as PE ¶0342), and
wherein the third structure has a structure in which a same material as the passivation layer, a same material as the planarization layer, and a same material as the bank are laminated (104a/104b/104c, respectively).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Gwon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210257592 (Lee et al).
As to Claim 12: the combination of Jeon and Gwon teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 1, but fails to teach the device further comprising a crack detection unit disposed under the plurality of structures so as to overlap the first structure.
Lee teaches a device similar to that of Jeon and Gwon, and explicitly teaches a crack detection unit disposed under analogous structures to those of Jeon and Gwon (Lee Fig 11, crack detection pattern 310b lower than DMP) and overlapping the structure (structures overlap along the DR1 axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the display device taught by Jeon and Gwon with the inclusion of a crack detection unit taught by Lee in order to detect failure at the edge of the device before the failure propagates to the display region.
As to Claim 13: the combination of Jeon, Gwon, and Lee teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 12. Lee, as applied to claim 12, teaches the device further comprising:
a plurality of inorganic layers disposed between the crack detection unit and the first structure on the substrate (layers 93, 200-3/200-5, where 93 may be inorganic ¶0126 and at least one of 200-3/200-5 may be inorganic ¶0134),
wherein the plurality of inorganic layers is disposed to cover side and upper surfaces of the crack detection unit (200-5 and 93 have claimed disposition).
As to Claim 14: the combination of Jeon, Gwon, and Lee teaches the electroluminescent display device according to claim 13. Lee, as applied to claim 13, further teaches wherein the plurality of inorganic layers is made of a same material as inorganic insulating layers disposed in the display area (each of the layers are also in the display area PXA).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 9, no art was found which teaches an end of the organic encapsulation layer being disposed to overlap the third structure. Both cited embodiments of Jeon teach 106b overlapping the structure nearest to the display area. No specific motivation can be found to arrange the plurality of structures as claimed by applicant and as shown in applicant’s Fig. 5.
Claim 10 is allowable based on its dependence upon allowable claim 9.
As to Claim 15, no art was found which teaches a transparent conductive layer enclosing upper and side surface of the plurality of inorganic layers and in contact with an upper surface of the substrate. Lee discloses layers 200-2 and 200-4 may be transparent conductive layers which cover 200-1/200-3, but are nowhere disclosed to contact an upper surface of the substrate.
Claim 16 is allowable based on its dependence upon allowable claim 15.
As to Claim 17, no art found by examiner anticipates or renders obvious the limitation of the first and second inorganic encapsulation layers being separated with respect to an undercut structure. Gwon as applied to claim 1 teaches the separation of those encapsulation layers, but no rationale can be found by examiner to then specify the split occur with respect to the undercut structure taught by Jeon.
Claims 19-20 would be allowable based on their dependence on allowed claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240179997 and US 20240172523 each teach a plurality of undercut structures having discontinuities of layers thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Corbyn D Mellinger whose telephone number is (703)756-5683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 Eastern.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/Corbyn D Mellinger/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights