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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2020/0273927) [Hereinafter Oh].
Regarding claim 13, Oh teaches A method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
forming a metal layer [fig. 5a, metal layer ML, para 92] on a substrate [fig. 5a, substrate 100, para 66] to have a closed curve shape [fig. 8E shows exemplary closed curve shape] surrounding a transmissive area [fig. 5, transmission portion TA, para 59] in a plan view in a middle area [fig. 5a, sensor area SA, para 59] of the substrate,
wherein the substrate includes the transmissive area (fig. 5A),
a display area (fig. 5A, DA) surrounding the transmissive area (fig. 5A, TA), and
the middle area (fig. 5A, SA) between the transmissive area (fig. 5A, TA) and the display area (fig. 5A, DA); forming
a light emitting film [fig. 5a, light emitting diode OLED/OLED’, para 68] on the substrate (fig. 5a, 100) in at least the display area (fig. 5A, DA) and at least the middle area (fig. 5A, SA);
forming a common electrode layer [fig. 5a, opposite electrode 223, para 123] on the light emitting film (fig. 5A, OLED) in at least the display area (fig. 5A, DA) and in at least the middle area (fig. 5A, SA); and
radiating a laser to the metal layer to remove a portion of each of the light emitting film and the common electrode layer disposed to overlap the metal layer [laser beam LP, para 153; wherein portions of the OLED material and the common electrode layer 223 is removed].
Regarding claim 14, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13,
wherein in the radiating the laser, the metal layer is not removed. [Oh, para 154, “In some embodiments, the laser beam LP may be directed to irradiate the center portion PML-c, and not the entire portion of the preliminary metal layer PML.”]
Regarding claim 15, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13,
wherein in the irradiating the laser, the laser is radiated to the metal layer at least via the substrate [Oh, para 150].
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claims 13 -15 and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2014/0055028).
Regarding claim 16, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13.
Oh fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the radiating the laser, an average temperature in the light emitting film overlapping the metal layer is about 350 °C or higher.
However, Yi teaches a preferred low temperature process in para 49, “it may be preferable that a method not requiring a high-temperature heating process be selected in order to avoid damaging the substrate . . . material). For example . . .by radiating a laser for a short period of time to reduce the time during which the substrate 110 is exposed to high temperature (for example, a temperature of 300.degree. C. or higher), thereby performing the entire process at a lower temperature”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize low temperature laser process to prevent damage to underlying layers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claims 13 -15 and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2021/0024344A).
Regarding claim 17, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13.
Oh fails to explicitly disclose wherein the radiating the laser is performed in a vacuum.
Lee teaches a light emitting display device fabrication method [para 2] wherein the radiating the laser is performed in a vacuum [para 6].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a vacuum chamber to enable ultra-precision manufacturing an patterning of OLEDs.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claims 13 -15 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0195766).
Regarding claim 20, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13.
Oh fails to explicitly disclose wherein after the radiating the laser, a thickness of the metal layer is about 50 nm or greater.
Kim teaches wherein after the radiating the laser, a thickness of the metal layer is about 50 nm or greater [para 23, “Thicknesses of the first and second metal layers may be from about 30 nm to about 50 nm”].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the metal layer to have a thickness of about 50nm which also overlaps the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claims 18-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches A display device comprising:
a substrate [fig. 5a, substrate 100, para 66] including a transmissive area [fig. 5, transmission portion TA, para 59],
a display area [fig. 5a, display area DA, para 58] surrounding the transmissive area [fig. 1 illustrates display area DA surrounding the transmission portion TA], and
a middle area [fig. 5a, sensor area SA, para 59] between the transmissive area (fig. 5a, TA) and the display area (fig. 5a, DA);
a metal layer [fig. 5a, metal layer ML, para 92] disposed on the substrate (fig. 5a, 100) in the middle area,
wherein the metal layer (fig. 5a, ML) has a closed curve shape [fig. 8E shows exemplary closed curve shape] surrounding the transmissive area (fig. 5a, TA) in a plan view;
a light emitting film [fig. 5a, light emitting diode OLED/OLED’, para 68] disposed on the substrate (fig. 5a, 100) to extend from the display area (fig. 5a, DA) to the middle area (fig. 5a, SA); and
a common electrode layer [fig. 5a, opposite electrode 223, para 123] disposed to extend from the display area (fig. 5a, DA) to the middle area (fig. 5a, SA) and disposed on the light emitting film (fig. 5a, OLED) at least in the display area (fig. 5, DA),
wherein each of the light emitting film (fig. 5a, OLED/OLED’)
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose the common electrode layer in the middle area is disposed not to overlap the metal layer in the plan view.
Thereby claim 1 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein.
Claims 2 – 12 contain allowable subject matter at least based upon their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13, further comprising forming,
after the radiating the laser,
an encapsulation layer [fig. 5C, encapsulation layer 300, para 73] including
a first inorganic encapsulation layer [fig. 5C, inorganic encapsulation layer 310, para 73],
an organic encapsulation layer [fig. 5C, organic encapsulation layer 320, para 73], and
a second inorganic encapsulation layer [fig. 5C, inorganic encapsulation layer 330, para 73] which are sequentially stacked therein in at least the display area (fig. 5C, DA) and at least the middle area (fig. 5C, SA).
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer is in direct contact with an entire upper surface of the metal layer.
Thereby claim 18 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, Oh teaches The method of manufacturing the display device of claim 13, further comprising forming
a capping layer [fig. 5A, capping layer 250, para 133] on the common electrode layer (fig. 5A, 223) in at least the display area (fig. 5A, DA) and in at least the middle area (fig. 5A, SA).
The prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the radiating the laser, the capping layer disposed to overlap the metal layer is further removed.
Thereby claim 19 contains allowable subject matter in light of the additional limitations recited therein and 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 FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights