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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2023-11-28. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR- 10-2023-0168132 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to as it states “the end of the light emitting layer is closer to the first dam than.” The word “than” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20170110532 A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches:
A display device (400 – Fig. 4 – [0064] – “display apparatus 400”) , comprising:
a substrate (401 – Fig. 4 – [0064] – “display substrate 401”);
a hole area (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0067] – “hole area HA” – hereinafter
‘HAA’ – this corresponds to the applicant’s hole area that encompasses the hole and the surrounding area that is a non-display area);
a display area (DA -Fig. 4 – [0065] – “display area DA”) surrounding the hole
area (HAA – Fig. 12 shows this);
a light emitting device (425 – Fig. 4 – [0082] – “organic light-emitting device
(OLED) 425”) disposed in the display area (DA) on the substrate (401 – Fig. 4 shows this);
a plurality of encapsulation layers (432 – Fig. 4 – [0064] – “thin film
encapsulation (TFE) layer 432”) disposed on the light emitting device (425 – Fig. 4 shows this); and
a first dam (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0099] – “at least one insulating dam 443” – hereinafter ‘443-1’) and a second dam (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0099] – “at least one insulating dam 443” – hereinafter ‘443-2’) disposed in the hole area (HAA) on the substrate (401), the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2) spaced apart from each other (Fig. 4 annotated shows this),
wherein:
the light emitting device (425) includes a first electrode (426 – Fig. 4 – [0083] – “first electrode 426”) disposed on the substrate (401), a light emitting layer (427 – Fig. 4 – [0083] – “intermediate layer 427 including an organic emission layer”) disposed on the first electrode (426), and a second electrode (428 – Fig. 4 – [0083] – “second electrode 428”) disposed on the light emitting layer (427); and
an end of the second electrode (428) overlaps at least one (435 – Fig. 4 – [0098] – “A plurality of inorganic layers 433 and a plurality of organic layers 434 may be alternately stacked in the thin film encapsulation layer 432. The inorganic layer 433 may include, for example, a first inorganic layer 435”) of the plurality of encapsulation layers (432) and is spaced apart from the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2 – Fig. 4 shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hwang et al. (US 20220158130 A1 – Hwang).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein the display area (DA) includes:
an emitting area (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘EA’) in which the light emitting device (DA) is disposed; and
a non-emitting area (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘NEA’) surrounding the emitting area (EA),
wherein the non-emitting area (NEA) includes a bank (424 – Fig. 4 – [0085] – “pixel definition layer 424”) disposed on the first electrode (426 – [0085] – “pixel definition layer 424 may be disposed on the planarization layer 423. The pixel definition layer 424 may cover a portion of the first electrode 426”), and
wherein an end of the light emitting layer and an end of the second electrode are disposed between the bank and the first dam.
Kim does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Hwang teaches
wherein an end of the light emitting layer (EL – Fig. 3 – [0099] – “trench pattern portion 18 may additionally isolate (or disconnect) the common electrode CE of the light emitting device layer, and in this case, an end of the common electrode CE isolated by the trench pattern portion 18 may be implemented to cover the end of the light emitting layer EL isolated by the trench pattern portion 18”) and an end of the second electrode (CE – Fig. 3 – [0099] – “trench pattern portion 18 may additionally isolate (or disconnect) the common electrode CE of the light emitting device layer, and in this case, an end of the common electrode CE isolated by the trench pattern portion 18 may be implemented to cover the end of the light emitting layer EL isolated by the trench pattern portion 18”) are disposed between the bank (14 – Fig. 3 – [0127] – “bank 14”) and the first dam (17 – Fig. 3 – [0127] – “dam pattern portion 17” – Fig. 3 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting layer structure as taught by Hwang into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hwang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0018] – “a light emitting display apparatus, which has a thin bezel width and prevents the reliability of a light emitting device from being reduced by penetration of water.”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hwang and Xu et al. (US 20210159446 A1 – hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 3, Kim, as modified by Hwang, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Kim and Hwang do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein compared to the end of the second electrode (433 – Fig. 9 – [0059]
– “second electrode layer 433”), the end of the light emitting layer (432 – Fig. 9 – [0059] – “light-emitting layer 432”) is closer to the first dam (5B – Fig. 9 – [0064] – “eave structure 5B” – this corresponds to the first dam) than.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light-emitting layer and second electrode structure as taught by Xu into Kim and Hwang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0004] – “An organic light-emitting layer and a cathode layer which are both formed through evaporation would form an invasion path through which the aperture is in communication with the OLED element, thereby causing water and oxygen invading into an interior of OLED element from a side surface of the aperture and along the invasion path. As a result, the performance and the service life of the OLED element may be adversely affected. Thus, the focus of research and development personnel researching the display apparatus of this kind is to increase the encapsulation dependence of the display apparatus providing with apertures.”
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo et al. (US 20230292549 A1– hereinafter Seo).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein the plurality of encapsulation layers (432) include:
a first encapsulation layer (435 – Fig. 4 – [0098] – “A plurality of inorganic layers 433 and a plurality of organic layers 434 may be alternately stacked in the thin film encapsulation layer 432. The inorganic layer 433 may include, for example, a first inorganic layer 435”) disposed on the light emitting device (425) and including an inorganic insulating material;
a second encapsulation layer (438 – Fig. 4 – [0098] – “The organic layer 434 may include, for example, a first organic layer 438”) disposed on the first encapsulation layer (435) and including an organic insulating material; and
a third encapsulation layer (436 – Fig. 4 – [0098] – “second inorganic layer 436”) disposed on the second encapsulation layer (438) and including an inorganic insulating material.
Kim does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Seo teaches
including an inorganic insulating material ([0029] – “the encapsulation layer may include disposing an inorganic encapsulation layer including the inorganic insulating material to cover the display area of the substrate except for the component hole” – it is known that encapsulation layers can contain inorganic or organic insulating materials);
including an organic insulating material ([0029] – “the encapsulation layer may include disposing an inorganic encapsulation layer including the inorganic insulating material to cover the display area of the substrate except for the component hole” – it is known that encapsulation layers can contain inorganic or organic insulating materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the insulating material structure as taught by Seo into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Seo in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results [0004] – “of the light-emitting display device include an organic light-emitting display device composed of organic light-emitting elements, an inorganic light-emitting display device composed of inorganic light-emitting elements such as inorganic semiconductors, and a micro light-emitting display device composed of micro light-emitting elements.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 12, Kim, as modified by Seo, teaches claim 4 from which claim 12 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein the hole area (HAA) includes:
a central area (HA – Fig. 4 – [0066] – “hole area HA may correspond to a region in which the hole 103 of the display substrate 101 of FIG. 3A is disposed”) having a hole (103 – Fig. 9 – [0066] – “hole area HA may correspond to a region in which the hole 103 of the display substrate 101 of FIG. 3A is disposed”); and
a peripheral area (NDA – Fig. 4 – this corresponds to a peripheral area) surrounding the central area (HA),
wherein the hole (103) is an area in which a portion of the substrate (401) is removed (Fig. 4 shows this), and
wherein the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2) are disposed in the peripheral area (NDA – Fig. 4 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kim, as modified by Seo, teaches claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein compared to the second dam (443-2), the first dam (443-1) is
closer to the display area (DA – Fig. 4 annotated, see above, shows this).
Regarding claim 14, Kim, as modified by Seo, teaches claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein the first encapsulation layer (435) and the third
encapsulation layer (436) are disposed in the peripheral area (NDA) and cover the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2 – Fig. 4 annotated, see above, shows this).
Claims 9-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xu.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the hole area (33 – Fig. 9 – [0065] – “first eave structure 5A and the
second eave structure 5B are disposed at an interval between the aperture 33 and the OLED element 43” – an aperture is a hole) includes a first dummy light emitting layer (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DEL-1’) and a second dummy light emitting layer (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DEL-2’), and
the first dummy light emitting layer (DEL-1) and the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2) are made of a material that is same as a material of the light emitting layer ([0087] – “the light-emitting layer 432 and the second electrode layer 433 are disconnected at the undercuts of all the eave structures” – it is the same light emitting layer as in the light emitting area).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
1087
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the first dummy light emitting layer (DEL-1) is disposed on an
upper portion of the first dam (5B – Fig. 9 – [0064] – “eave structure 5B” – this corresponds to a first dam),
the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2) is disposed on an upper portion of the second dam (5A – Fig. 9 – [0064] – “eave structure 5A” – this corresponds to a second dam), and
the first dummy light emitting layer (DEL-1) and the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 9 annotated, shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the light emitting layer (432) is spaced apart from the first dummy
light emitting layer (DEL-1) and the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2 – Fig. 9 annotated, shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding independent claim 15, Kim teaches:
A display device (400 – Fig. 4 – [0064] – “display apparatus 400”),
comprising:
a hole area (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0067] – “hole area HA” – hereinafter
‘HAA’ – this corresponds to the applicant’s hole area that encompasses the hole and the surrounding area that is a non-display area);
a display area (DA -Fig. 4 – [0065] – “display area DA”) surrounding the hole
area (HAA – Fig. 12 shows this); and
a central area (HA – Fig. 4 – [0066] – “hole area HA may correspond to a region
in which the hole 103 of the display substrate 101 of FIG. 3A is disposed”) having a hole (103 – Fig. 9 – [0066] – “hole area HA may correspond to a region in which the hole 103 of the display substrate 101 of FIG. 3A is disposed”) and a peripheral area (NDA – Fig. 4 – this corresponds to a peripheral area) surrounding the central area (HA), in the hole area (HAA),
wherein:
the peripheral area (NDA) includes a first dam (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0099] – “at least one insulating dam 443” – hereinafter ‘443-1’) and a second dam (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – [0099] – “at least one insulating dam 443” – hereinafter ‘443-2’) disposed on a substrate (401 – Fig. 4 – [0064] – “display substrate 401”), the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2) surrounding the hole (103);
a first dummy light emitting layer disposed on the first dam; and
a second dummy light emitting layer disposed on the second dam.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
a first dummy light emitting layer (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DEL-1’) disposed on the first dam (5B – Fig. 9 – [0064] – “eave structure 5B” – this corresponds to a first dam); and
a second dummy light emitting layer (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DEL-2’) disposed on the second dam (5A – Fig. 9 – [0064] – “eave structure 5A” – this corresponds to a second dam).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
1087
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein the first dam (443-1) and the second dam (443-2) have a
closed curve shape (Fig. 3A shows the hole 103 is round therefore it is interpreted that associated areas are round and therefore contain curved structures) surrounding the central area (HA) and are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 4A annotated, see above, shows this).
Regarding claim 17, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 16 from which claim 17 depends. Kim further teaches
wherein compared to the second dam (443-2), the first dam (443-1) is
closer to the display area (DA – Fig. 4 annotated, see above, shows this).
Regarding claim 18, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 16 from which claim 18 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 18.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the first dummy light emitting layer (DEL-1) has a shape
corresponding to that of the first dam (5B), and
the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2) has a shape corresponding to that of the second dam (5A – Fig. 9 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 18 from which claim 19 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2) extends to the
peripheral area (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – [0059] – “the second electrode layer 433 and the light-emitting layer 432 may extend from a region where the OLED element 43 is located (that is, an opening region of a pixel) to a region where the aperture 33 is located” – this is interpreted as the peripheral area, hereinafter ‘SA’) adjacent to the central area (Fig. 9 annotated, see below – [0059] – “the second electrode layer 433 and the light-emitting layer 432 may extend from a region where the OLED element 43 is located (that is, an opening region of a pixel) to a region where the aperture 33 is located” – this is interpreted as the central area, hereinafter ‘CA’).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
1087
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Kim, as modified by Xu, teaches claim 19 from which claim 20 depends. Kim does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Xu teaches
wherein the display area (Fig. 9 annotated, see above – [0059] – “the second
electrode layer 433 and the light-emitting layer 432 may extend from a region where the OLED element 43 is located (that is, an opening region of a pixel) to a region where the aperture 33 is located” – this is interpreted as the display area, hereinafter ‘DA’) includes a light emitting layer (432 – Fig. 9 – [0059] – “the light-emitting layer 432 disposed on the substrate (40 – Fig. 9 – [0061] – “base substrate 40”),
a partial area of the light emitting layer (432) is disposed in the peripheral area (SA), and
the light emitting layer (432) is spaced apart from the first dummy light emitting layer (DEL-1) and the second dummy light emitting layer (DEL-2 – Fig. 9 annotated, see above, shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy light emitting layer structure as taught by Xu into Kim.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Xu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Regarding claim 5, prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the end of the second electrode overlaps the second encapsulation layer.
Regarding claim 6, prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the protrusion spaced apart from the light emitting layer.
Claims 7-8 depend on claim 6 and would be allowable.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20210193957 A1 and US 20240324430 A1 are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including light-emitting/receiving element, or a second light-emitting layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights