3DETAILED 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 § 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Lee (US. Pub: 2015/0287771 A1); Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2006/0238463 A1~hereinafter “Kim”) and Bibl et al. (US. Pub: 2014/0267683 A1~hereinafter “Bibl”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 5) a display device, comprising: a display panel including a display area (DA; [0049]) and a non-display area (PA; [0049]) adjacent to the display area, the display panel having at least three surfaces (see figs. 1 and 5); and a metal dam (60) disposed in the non-display area (PA) to surround the at least three surfaces of the display panel (see fig. 5), wherein the display panel includes: a substrate (10); a pixel driving circuit (TR; 212) disposed on the substrate; and a light emitting element (OLED) driven by the pixel driving circuit.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses (in at least figs. 1 and 5) the metal dam (60) is spaced at a selected distance from an edge of the display panel (see fig. 5).
Note: both Kim and Bibl also disclose the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0146061 A1~hereinafter “Nam”); Kim et al. (US. Pub: 2006/0238463 A1~hereinafter “Kim”) and Bibl et al. (US. Pub: 2014/0267683 A1~hereinafter “Bibl”).
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) a display device, comprising: a display panel including a display area (20; [0040]) and a non-display area (see at least fig. 1; i.e. the edge portion of the display device) adjacent to the display area, the display panel having at least three surfaces (see fig. 1); and a metal dam (35, 175; [0043]; [0089]) disposed in the non-display area (see at least figs. 2 and 11) to surround the at least three surfaces of the display panel (see fig. 2), wherein the display panel includes: a substrate (10); a pixel driving circuit (61; see figs. 9-11) disposed on the substrate; and a light emitting element (25; [0079]) driven by the pixel driving circuit.
Regarding claim 2, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the metal dam (35, 175) is spaced at a selected distance from an edge of the display panel (see figs. 2 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the metal dam (35, 175) is formed of a plurality of metal layers (best seen in at least figs. 9-11) coupled through at least one hole (154).
Regarding claim 4, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the metal dam includes a first metal dam (174), a second metal dam (173), and a third metal dam (35, 175) that are disposed in the non-display area while surrounding the at least three surfaces of the display area.
Regarding claim 5, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the display panel further includes: a buffer layer (13) disposed on the substrate (10); a first hole (see figs. 9-11) in the buffer layer in the non-display area (see at least figs. 9-11); an insulating layer (14) on the buffer layer; a second hole (see figs. 9-11) in the insulating layer in the non-display area; a passivation layer (15) covering the second hole; a first optical layer (16) covering the passivation layer; wherein the first metal dam (35, 154) is disposed in the non-display area while surrounding the at least three surfaces of the display area on the buffer layer (see at least figs. 9-11); wherein the second metal dam (173) overlaps the first metal dam (174) on the insulating layer in a plan view; and wherein the third metal dam (35, 175) overlaps the first metal dam (174) on the first optical layer in a plan view, and wherein the first metal dam (174) and the second metal dam (173) are coupled through the first hole.
Regarding claim 7, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 9-11) the first hole and the second hole are disposed not to overlap each other.
Regarding claim 8, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the second metal dam (173) and the third metal dam (35, 175) are partially coupled.
Regarding claim 9, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the passivation layer (15) is disposed between an outermost portion of the second metal dam (173) and an outermost portion of the third metal dam (35, 175).
Regarding claim 10, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 1-11) the edge of the display panel (20) indicative of an outermost side surface of the display panel (20).
Note: both Kim and Bibl also disclose the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US. Pub: 2012/0146061 A1~hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 6, Nam does not expressly disclose the first hole and the second hole are disposed to overlap each other.
However, Nam discloses (in at least figs. 9-11) a first hole and a second hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device of Nam such that the first hole and the second hole are disposed to overlap each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights