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
Acknowledgement is made to a claim of priority to Korean application KR10-2023-0184122 filed on December 18th, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on July 12th, 2024, and March 30th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (FIGS. 5, 7, 9 and 11) in the reply filed on July 31st, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is made FINAL, claims 1-13 and 16-20 are being examined on their merits and all non-elected claims (i.e. claims 14-15, and 21) are withdrawn from consideration at
this time.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The units for the thermal conductivity in the disclosure (i.e. "W/mk") are not a recognized unit of thermal conductivity in the SI unit system and in the context of semiconductor physics the character “k” can refer to the numerous constants (e.g. Boltzmann constant, a mistyping of the Greek letter kappa referring to a dielectric constant, etc). Further, applicant does not specifically and clearly define the character “k” to represent the SI unit of temperature “Kelvin” in the disclosure as is their right as their own lexicographer (see MPEP 2111.01 IV). These and all other instances in the disclosure should therefore read "W/mK" to clarify their meaning and align with SI unit conventions.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting the previously referenced errors and any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The units for the thermal conductivity in the claim limitations (i.e. "W/mk"), are not a recognized unit of thermal conductivity as in the context of semiconductor physics the character “k” can refer to the numerous constants (e.g. Boltzmann constant, a mistyping of the Greek letter kappa referring to a dielectric constant, etc) nor in the SI unit system. These and all other occurrences in the claims should therefore read "W/mK" to clarify their meaning and align with SI unit conventions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US20210384457A1).
Regarding claim 1;
Jang et al. teaches an organic light emitting diode display device (e.g. Fig. 1 ref DD) comprising: a display panel comprising an organic light emitting diode (e.g. Fig. 5 ref DP-OLED); and a heat dissipation member facing the display panel, wherein the heat dissipation member comprises a plurality of heat dissipation layers (e.g. Fig. 5 ref RHL) having different thicknesses and different thermal conductivities from each other (e.g. Detailed description [0124] “The thickness of each of the first heat dissipation layer RHL1 may be greater than that of the second heat dissipation layer RHL2.”, [0127] “Each of the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include a metal material. For example, the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include silver (Ag) or copper (Cu) which has a high thermal conductivity.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2;
Jang et al. further teaches that the plurality of heat dissipation layers comprises: a first heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 5 ref RHL1); and a second heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the display panel (e.g. Fig. 5 ref RHL2).
Regarding claim 3;
Jang et al. further teaches that the second heat dissipation layer has a higher thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. Detailed description [0127] “Each of the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include a metal material. For example, the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include silver (Ag) or copper (Cu) which has a high thermal conductivity.”); and the second heat dissipation layer has a thickness that is less than a thickness of the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7;
Jang et al. teaches further teaches that the plurality of heat dissipation layers comprises: a first heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 5 ref RHL1); a second heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the display panel (e.g. Fig. 5 ref RHL2); and a third heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the second heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 5 ref ETL).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8;
Jang et al. teaches further teaches that the third heat dissipation layer has a thickness greater than a thickness of the second heat dissipation layer and less than a thickness of the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 7 rejection); and the first heat dissipation layer has a thermal conductivity higher than thermal conductivity of the third heat dissipation layer and lower than a thermal conductivity of the second heat dissipation layer (e.g. Detailed description [0127] “Each of the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include a metal material. For example, the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include silver (Ag) or copper (Cu) which has a high thermal conductivity.”, [0075] “The etching stop layer ETL may include a metal material such as molybdenum.”).
Claims 1, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US20230209889A1).
Regarding claim 1;
Park et al. teaches an organic light emitting diode display device (e.g. Fig. 2) comprising: a display panel comprising an organic light emitting diode (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 10); and a heat dissipation member facing the display panel, wherein the heat dissipation member comprises a plurality of heat dissipation layers (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 31,32,33,34) having different thicknesses and different thermal conductivities from each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
835
813
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13;
Park et al. teaches that the organic light emitting display device further comprises a housing surrounding the plurality of heat dissipation layers (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 20, Detailed description [0084] “The first rigid member 20 may be disposed on a bottom surface of the display substrate constituting the display panel 10 and may supplement the rigidity of the display substrate.”).
Regarding claim 16;
Park et al. further teaches that the organic light emitting display device further comprises a housing selectively surrounding at least one of the plurality of heat dissipation layers (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 20; Detailed description [0084] “The first rigid member 20 may be disposed on a bottom surface of the display substrate constituting the display panel 10 and may supplement the rigidity of the display substrate.”).
Regarding claim 17;
Park et al. further teaches that the plurality of heat dissipation layers comprise a first heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 32) and a second heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the display panel (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 31); and the housing surrounds the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. see examiner markup below).
PNG
media_image4.png
835
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18;
Park et al. further teaches that the plurality of heat dissipation layers comprise a first heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 33), a second heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the display panel (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 31) and a third heat dissipation layer between the first heat dissipation layer and the second heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 32); and the housing surrounds the first heat dissipation layer. (e.g. see examiner markup below)
PNG
media_image5.png
835
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US10517196B2).
Regarding claim 1;
Chen et al. teaches an organic light emitting diode display device (e.g. Fig. 4 ref 1) comprising: a display panel comprising an organic light emitting diode (e.g. Fig. 4 ref 2000); and a heat dissipation member facing the display panel, wherein the heat dissipation member comprises a plurality of heat dissipation layers (e.g. Fig. 4 REF 1000,3000,4000,5000) having different thicknesses and different thermal conductivities from each other.
PNG
media_image6.png
503
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19;
Chen et al. further teaches that a total thickness of the plurality of heat dissipation layers is in a range of about 50% to about 150% of a thickness of the display panel (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 1 rejection above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US20210384457A1) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 4;
Jang et al. teaches the organic light emitting display device of claim 3 (e.g. see 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of claim 3).
Jang et al. is silent to a ratio between the thickness of the first heat dissipation layer and the thickness of the second heat dissipation layer is about 19:1 as claimed.
However, Jang et al. does show in figure 5 that the first heat dissipation layer has a thickness greater than the second heat dissipation layer (e.g. Detailed description [0124] “The thickness of each of the first heat dissipation layer RHL1 may be greater than that of the second heat dissipation layer RHL2.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second heat dissipation layers taught in Jang et al. to have a thickness ratio of 19:1 with routine experimentation and optimization since doing so maintains the contemplated proportions disclosed in figure 5 of Jang et al leading to a predictable variation of the contemplated invention. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 9;
Jang et al. teaches the organic light emitting display device of claim 8 (e.g. see 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of claim 8).
Jang et al. is silent to a ratio between the thickness of the first heat dissipation layer, the thickness of the third heat dissipation layer, and the thickness of the second heat dissipation layer is about 16:3:1 as claimed.
However, Jang et al. does show in figure 5 that the third heat dissipation layer has a thickness greater than the second heat dissipation layer and less than the thickness of the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. see examiner markup in claim 7 rejection).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to configure the third, second, and first heat dissipation layers taught in Jang et al. to have a thickness ratio of 16:3:1 with routine experimentation and optimization since doing so maintains the contemplated proportions disclosed in figure 5 of Jang et al leading to a predictable variation of the contemplated invention. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 6, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US20210384457A1) in view of Chu et al. (US20210144881A1) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 6;
Jang et al. teaches the organic light emitting display device of claim 2 (e.g. see 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 2).
Jang et al. is silent to the first heat dissipation layer comprising natural graphite; and the second heat dissipation layer comprises artificial graphite as claimed.
However, Chu et al. teaches heat dissipation films made with both natural and artificial graphite (e.g. Detailed description [0037] “the heat dissipation film may be formed of any of the following materials: artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, nano-carbon, copper foil, heat-conducting silica gel or a composite material of the materials selected from artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, nano-carbon, copper foil, and heat-conducting silica gel. Alternatively, the heat dissipation film may be made of any other material, as long as that material can provide good thermal conductivity to facilitate the heat dissipation of the whole flexible screen.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the first heat dissipation layer taught in Jang et al. from natural graphite as taught in Chu et al., and the second heat dissipation layer taught in Jang et al. from artificial graphite as taught in Chu et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (e.g. Detailed description [0127] “Each of the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include a metal material… which has a high thermal conductivity.”) as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11;
Jang et al. teaches the organic light emitting display device of claim 7 (e.g. see 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 7) and that the third heat dissipation layer comprises a metal material (e.g. Detailed description [0075] “The etching stop layer ETL may include a metal material such as molybdenum. ”).
Jang et al. is silent to the first heat dissipation layer comprising natural graphite; and the second heat dissipation layer comprises artificial graphite as claimed.
However, Chu et al. teaches heat dissipation films made with both natural and artificial graphite (e.g. Detailed description [0037] “the heat dissipation film may be formed of any of the following materials: artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, nano-carbon, copper foil, heat-conducting silica gel or a composite material of the materials selected from artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, nano-carbon, copper foil, and heat-conducting silica gel. Alternatively, the heat dissipation film may be made of any other material, as long as that material can provide good thermal conductivity to facilitate the heat dissipation of the whole flexible screen.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the first heat dissipation layer taught in Jang et al. from natural graphite as taught in Chu et al., and the second heat dissipation layer taught in Jang et al. from artificial graphite as taught in Chu et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (e.g. Detailed description [0127] “Each of the first heat dissipation layers RHL1 and the second heat dissipation layer RHL2 may include a metal material… which has a high thermal conductivity.”) as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12;
Jang et al. teaches the organic light emitting display device of claim 11 (see 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 11).
Jang et al. is silent to the third heat dissipation layer comprising aluminum as claimed.
However, Jang et al. teaches that the third heat dissipation layer (e.g. Fig. 5 ref ETL) is also used to prevent damage to the pixel layer during the device formation (e.g. Detailed description [0150] “The etching stop layer ETL may prevent the etching liquid from being permeated to the pixel layer PXL through the first opening parts OP1, in case that the first opening parts OP1 are formed by the etching liquid.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the third heat dissipation layer taught in Jang et al. from Aluminum, since aluminum is a material known to have corrosion resistance under many acidic and alkaline conditions. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US10517196B2) in view of Wu (WO2023130508A1) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 20;
Chen et al. teaches the organic light emitting display of claim 19 (e.g. see 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 19).
Chen et al. is silent to the total thickness of the plurality of heat dissipation layers is in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm as claimed.
However, Wu teaches a heat dissipation structure with heat dissipation layers each having a thickness of less than 200µm (e.g. Detailed description [0053] “the thickness of the metal tensile layer 222 ranges from 50 to 150 μm.”, [0084] “The thickness of the thermo-sensitive layer 221d is less than 200 μm”, [0085] “ the thickness of the fourth adhesive layer 221e ranges from 75 to 150 μm”; the sum of these thicknesses is less than 600µm which is 0.6mm).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to configure the total thickness of the plurality of heat dissipation layers taught in Chen et al. to be in a range of 0.5mm to 1.5mm with routine experimentation and optimization since doing so would improve the flexibility of the resulting device (e.g. Detailed description [0053] “If the thickness of the metal tensile layer 222 is less than 200 μm, the bending performance of the OLED display module is satisfied, the thickness of the metal tensile layer 222 is further reduced, and the bending performance of the OLED display module is further improved.”, [0084] “As the thickness of the thermo-sensitive layer 221 d is further reduced, the bending performance of the OLED display module is further improved.”). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ROBERT MANN whose telephone number is (571)270-0210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 0800-1800 EST.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/WILLIAM ROBERT MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights