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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 26 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 August 2026.
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 1-13 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.
The term “around” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “a second sealing dam around the first sealing dam” in line 18 of the claim (claim 2 is similar). It is unclear where the second sealing dam is in relation to the first sealing dam, since the term “around” is used in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner broadly interprets the recitation as the second sealing dam being anywhere in the vicinity of the first sealing dam.
Due to their dependencies upon independent claim 1, claims 2-13 are also deemed indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “…the heights of the second sealing dam and the third sealing dam are a same” in the last line of the claim. It is unclear what the heights are a same of—e.g., a same height as the first sealing dam. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the recitation as the second and third sealing dams have the same height.
Due to their dependencies upon claim 3, claims 4-5 are also deemed indefinite.
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 1-2, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (US 2024/0260407).
Regarding independent claim 1, Oh teaches a display device comprising a substrate (Fig. 6, Element 101; ¶ [0033]) including a display area (Fig. 6, Element AA; ¶ [0034]) and a non-display area (Fig. 6, Element NA; ¶ [0089]) around the display area, a plurality of transistors (Fig. 1, Element T; ¶ [0036]) being located on the substrate; a light emitting element layer on the substrate and comprising a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 1, Element OD; ¶ [0031]) in the display area; an encapsulation layer (Fig. 1, Element 180; ¶ [0068]) on the light emitting element layer; a color filter layer on the encapsulation layer and comprising a plurality of color filters overlapping the light emitting elements, respectively (¶ [0079]); a lens array layer (Fig. 1, Element Lc; ¶ [0075]) on the color filter layer and comprising a plurality of lenses in the display area; a sealing dam structure (Fig. 6, Element DAMP; ¶ [0147]) in the non-display area and comprising a plurality of sealing dams surrounding the display area; and a cover layer (Fig. 6, Element 205/215; ¶ [0116]-[0117]) on the lens array layer and located in an area surrounded by the sealing dam structure, the plurality of sealing dams comprising a first sealing dam adjacent to the display area and a second sealing dam around the first sealing dam, and at least a portion of the cover layer being between the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Oh teaches the sealing dam structure comprising a third sealing dam (Fig. 6, Element DAM; ¶ [0102]) around the second sealing dam, and the cover layer does not go beyond the third sealing dam (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Oh teaches the sealing dam structure comprising a base sealing dam (Fig. 6, Element 200; ¶ [0165]) below the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam, and wherein a thickness of the base sealing dam is greater than a thickness of each of the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Oh teaches the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam comprising a same material (¶ [0156]), and wherein the base sealing dam comprises a different material from the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam (¶ [0081]).
Regarding claim 13, Oh teaches a plurality of pads (Fig. 6, element PAD; ¶ [0089]) disposed in the non-display area of the substrate, wherein the sealing dam structure does not surround the pads, and the cover layer does not overlap the pads (Fig. 6).
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2024/0260407).
Regarding claim 11, Oh teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier but fails to exemplify a width of each of the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam being in a range of 500 µm to 600 µm.
Oh discloses the widths of the sealing dams may be the same or different and may increase as their thicknesses increase (¶ [0157]).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Oh with a width of each of the first sealing dam and the second sealing dam being in a range of 500 µm to 600 µm, since where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 12, Oh teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed earlier. Oh also teaches the dam comprising a polymer resin (¶s [0058], [0105]) but fails to exemplify the polymer resin having a viscosity in a range of 50,000 cP to 300,000 cP and having a thixotropic index in a range of 4 to 6.
It would have been an obvious choice of design to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display device of Oh with a dam comprising a polymer resin having a viscosity in a range of 50,000 cP to 300,000 cP and having a thixotropic index in a range of 4 to 6, since where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 3, the prior art of record neither shows or suggests a display device comprising in addition to other limitations of the claim, a height of the first sealing dam smaller than heights of the second sealing dam and the third sealing dam, wherein the second sealing dam and the third sealing dam have the same height.
Due to their dependencies upon claim 3, claims 4-5 are also allowable.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record neither shows or suggests a display device comprising in addition to other limitations of the claim, heights of the first sealing dam, the second sealing dam, and the third sealing dam being the same, wherein at least a portion of the cover layer is located between the second sealing dam and the third sealing dam.
Due to their dependencies upon claim 6, claims 7-8 are also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US 2024/0315113) teaches a display device with a filler surrounded by a sealing member. Yeo (US 2022/0199948) teaches a display device with a thin-film encapsulation layer including a recessed portion. Lee (US 2021/0202917) teaches a display device with a lens layer having a convex shape disposed on an intermediate layer. Byun (US 2021/0066419) teaches a display device with a spacer having a width increasing toward a substrate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Quarterman whose telephone number is (571)272-2461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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 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.
/Kevin Quarterman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 14 October 2026
