Prior art

I am sorry, but I was unable to find the specific information for US Patent 11,251,394 in the publicly available databases. This could be due to a few reasons: the patent number might be incorrect, it could be a recently issued patent and the data has not been fully indexed by all public search tools yet, or there might be a typographical error in the number provided.

To conduct a thorough prior art search, it is crucial to have the correct patent number and access to its full documentation, including the claims and the list of cited references.

However, I can provide a general methodology and an example of how a prior art analysis would be conducted if the patent information were available. This will help you understand the process and what to look for when you obtain the correct patent document.

General Methodology for Prior Art Analysis

A prior art search for a patent like US 11,251,394, which deals with an "Organic light emitting display and method of fabricating the same," would typically involve the following steps:

1. Understand the Invention: The first step is to thoroughly understand the key features and inventive concepts of the patent in question. This involves a detailed reading of the patent's claims, specification, and drawings. The claims define the legal scope of the invention, while the specification provides the context and details of how it works.

2. Identify Keywords and Concepts: Based on the understanding of the invention, a list of relevant keywords and technical concepts is created. For this patent, keywords might include: "OLED," "touch sensor," "encapsulation," "inorganic layer," "organic layer," "flexible display," "thin film transistor," and specific materials mentioned like "silicon nitride" or "indium tin oxide (ITO)."

3. Search Patent Databases: Using the identified keywords and concepts, a comprehensive search of various patent databases is conducted. The primary source is the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database, but other international databases like Espacenet (European Patent Office), Patentscope (WIPO), and national patent offices of countries like Japan and Korea are also crucial.

4. Analyze Cited References: A key part of the analysis is to review the "References Cited" section of the patent itself. These are the prior art documents that the patent examiner considered during the examination process. Each of these references needs to be carefully evaluated.

5. Evaluate for Novelty and Non-Obviousness: Each piece of prior art is compared against the claims of the patent in question. The key questions are:

   • Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Does a single prior art reference disclose every single element of a claim? If so, that claim is said to be "anticipated" by the prior art and may be invalid.
   • Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103): Would the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field at the time the invention was made? This often involves combining teachings from multiple prior art references.

Example of a Prior Art Analysis (Hypothetical)

Let's assume we have found a prior art reference, for instance, U.S. Patent No. 9,876,543 (fictional), cited against US 11,251,394. Here's how the analysis would be presented:

Prior Art Reference:

• Full Citation: US Patent 9,876,543 B2, "Integrated Touch-Sensitive Display with Thin-Film Encapsulation," filed on March 15, 2014, and published on October 2, 2016.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an OLED display with a touch-sensitive layer integrated directly onto the encapsulation layer. The encapsulation structure consists of alternating layers of an inorganic material (silicon nitride) and an organic material (a polymer). The touch-sensing electrodes are formed on the final inorganic layer.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1: This reference could potentially anticipate claim 1 of US 11,251,394 if claim 1 broadly recites an organic light-emitting display with an encapsulation unit and touch sensors where the touch sensors are disposed on one of the encapsulation layers. The '543 patent appears to disclose this general structure.
  • Claim 5: If claim 5 of the '394 patent specifies that the touch driving lines and touch sensing lines are on different layers of the encapsulation, the '543 patent might not anticipate this claim if it discloses both sets of lines on the same layer. However, it could still be used in an obviousness argument.
  • Claim 12: If claim 12 of the '394 patent details a specific multi-layer structure for the routing lines (e.g., a stacked structure of a metal and a transparent conductive oxide), the '543 patent would need to be reviewed to see if it discloses a similar routing line structure.

To provide you with an accurate and detailed analysis of the prior art for US Patent 11,251,394, I will need the correct and accessible patent number. Once you can provide that, I can perform a targeted search and deliver the specific information you have requested. I recommend re-checking the patent number on the official USPTO website.