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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the display panel is defined comprises” is grammatically incorrect, and appears to be a typo. For the purpose of compact examination, the phrase will be assumed to read “the display panel comprises” Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 16 are 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.
Claims 6 and 16 are unclear because of the following informalities: the phrase “the permeation prevention region is inside the third portion of the crack prevention region to be in parallel with the third portion” is grammatically incorrect and the meaning is unclear. What is parallel with the third portion, the permeation prevention region or the crack prevention region? Also, it is not clear what it means for a “portion” and a region to be parallel to one another. For purposes of compact prosecution, this will be assumed to mean that a line passing through the third portion of the crack prevention region is parallel to a line along the dam structures. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. US 20210378107.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hwang discloses [claim 1- a display device] [claim 11 - a mobile electronic device] (see paragraph [0045], which discloses that the display device of claim 1 may be used in a mobile electronic device) comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
641
907
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a display panel having a display area in which a light-emitting element is located (display device 200 of figure 4 has a display area DA [0082], containing a light-emitting element [0060]), and
a non-display area outside the display area in plan view and comprising a permeation prevention region outside an encapsulation area (non-display area NDA is located outside the display area in plan view, as illustrated in figure 4, and comprises a permeation protection region DAM1[0143] in figure 14 outside of the area of the encapsulation enclosed by encapsulation layer TFT in figure 14 [0086]), and
a crack prevention region outside the permeation prevention region (see annotated figure 14) and in a double line shape at at least one corner of the display panel (in the corner of the display panel, the crack prevention structure CH in figure 8 [0128] is in an area of the display panel to the side of the outer edge of the panel from the dam DM1, and CH is within the NDA that extends around the perimeter of the display panel, the edges of which define a double line shape, as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 , Hwang discloses [claim 2 - the display device of claim 1] [claim 12 – the mobile electronic device of claim 11], further comprising
a driving circuit at one end of the display panel (IDC, shown in figure 4 and described in paragraph [0081]),
wherein the display panel ((is defined)) comprises a first corner and a second corner adjacent to the driving circuit, and a third corner and a fourth corner not adjacent to the driving circuit (see figure 5, where the first and second corners are designated CR3 and CR2 and are located closer to the driving circuit, and the third and fourth corners are designated CR4 and CR1, located not adjacent to the driving circuit), and
wherein the crack prevention region is in the double line shape at the third corner and the fourth corner of the display panel (the crack prevention hole CH is disposed along the edge of the display panel 200 [0148], within the double line shape defined by the edges of the NDA).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hwang discloses [claim 3 - the display device of claim 2] [claim 13 – the mobile electronic device of claim 12], wherein the crack prevention region is in a single line shape at the first corner and the second corner of the display panel (figure 4 shows that the crack prevention region, which is in the NDA, is circumscribed by a single line, the line defined by the outer edge of the display panel).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Hwang discloses [claim 4 - the display device of claim 2] [claim 14 – the mobile electronic device of claim 12], wherein the crack prevention region is in a right triangular shape at the third corner or the fourth corner of the display panel. (Figure 8 shows that the non-display area, which includes the crack prevention area is located in a right-triangular shape at the upper right hand corner of the display panel, corresponding to the fourth corner of the instant application.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hwang discloses [claim 5 - the display device of claim 4] [claim 15 – the mobile electronic device of claim 14], wherein, at the third corner or the fourth corner of the display panel, the crack prevention region comprises a first portion forming a part of a first side surface of the display panel, a second portion extending from the first portion in a vertical direction to form a part of a second side surface of the display panel, and a third portion to connect the first portion to the second portion in a diagonal direction. (see annotated figure 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hwang discloses [claim 6 - the display device of claim 5] [claim 16 – the mobile electronic device of claim 15], wherein, at the third corner or the fourth corner of the display panel, the permeation prevention region is inside the third portion of the crack prevention region to be in parallel with the third portion. (As described in the claim objection above, these limitations will be assumed to mean that a line passing through the third portion of the crack prevention region is parallel to a line along the dam structures. Paragraph [0148] discloses that the crack prevention hole in the crack prevention region, located in NDA, and passing through the third portion region shown in annotated figure 9, is disposed along the edge of the display panel 200. [0152] Paragraph [0152] discloses that the permeation prevention region, DAM1may be disposed more toward the display area than the crack prevention hole, but still within the crack-prevention region NDA. This paragraph also discloses that DAM1 may be spaced apart from the edge of the display panel 200 by a predetermined distance. Since both the crack prevention hole line and the DAM1 line are spaced parallel to the edge of the display
PNG
media_image3.png
436
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
panel, they are therefore parallel to one another.
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.
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.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. US 20210378107 in view of Cho et al. US 20160270209.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hwang discloses [claim 7 - the display device of claim 4] [claim 17 – the mobile electronic device of claim 14].
Hwang lacks wherein, at the third corner or the fourth corner of the display panel, a dummy structure is in the crack prevention region in the right triangular shape.
However, Cho discloses aa analogous display panel in which the third and fourth corners comprise a dummy structure 170 in the crack prevention region, this area having a right triangular shape – see figure 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the date of filing to use dummy patterns in the crack prevention areas at the upper corners of the display panel in order to further reduce stress, and thus prevent cracks, at the corners of the display panel.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hwang as modified by Cho discloses [claim 8 - the display device of claim 7] [claim 18 – the mobile electronic device of claim 17], wherein the display panel comprises a semiconductor substrate (Hwang figure 14 SUB), a semiconductor backplane above the semiconductor substrate (Hwang figure 14, BF1 [0136]), a light-emitting element backplane having metal layers (Hwang figure 14, all sublayers of TFL, except BF1 [0136], which include metal layers [0137]), and a light-emitting element layer above the light-emitting element backplane (Hwang figure 14, element 172 [0139]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hwang as modified by Cho discloses [claim 9 - the display device of claim 8] [claim 19 – the mobile electronic device of claim 18], wherein a stacked structure of the permeation prevention region comprises permeation prevention metal layers at a same layer as the metal layers of the light-emitting element backplane (the permeation protection region, shown in annotated figure 14, comprises stacked metal layers VSSL and VSEL [0135] at the same layer TFTL as the metal layers, including CAE, ANDE, S, and D of the light-emitting backplane, )
PNG
media_image4.png
641
907
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hwang as modified by Cho discloses [claim 10 - the display device of claim 8] [claim 20 – the mobile electronic device of claim 18], wherein a stacked structure of the crack prevention region comprises permeation prevention metal layers at a same layer as the metal layers of the light-emitting element backplane (Hwang figure 11 shows metal layers AM1 [0164] at the same layer TFTL as the metal layers, including CAE, ANDE, S, and D of the light-emitting backplane, ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. US 20190157607 discloses an OLED device with crack prevention areas around the perimeter of the display panel. Oh et al. US 20200403047 discloses a display device comprising crack prevention portions in the non-display area. Hu et al. US 20240268189 discloses a display with a crack prevention areas. Lee et al. US 11758773 discloses a display device with a crack prevention pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M H WALJESKI-MOSES whose telephone number is (571)272-0731. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 7:30 am- 5 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/KATRINA WALJESKI-MOSES/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights