The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 3-14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (2018/0019369) in view of Kim et al. (2018/0174519).Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text a display device comprising:
a substrate including a display area DA and a non-display area NA (see figure 1); and
at least one pixel disposed PX in the display area 70, and including an emission area formed to emit light,
wherein one pixel of the at least one-pixel PX includes:
first electrodes 21 disposed on the substrate (see also figure 13) and disposed in a column direction;
second electrodes 22 spaced apart from the first electrodes;
each of the second electrodes including
first 22-2 or 21a-2 (see figure 13) and second (another parallel 22-2 or another 21a-2 located on opposite side) sub-electrodes of the one-pixel spaced apart from each other in a row direction intersecting the column direction, and
a bridge pattern (a pattern which includes element 22-1 and small portions of protruding elements 22-2 OR 21b-2) of the one-pixel connecting the first and second sub-electrodes of the one-pixel and extending in the row direction, wherein the first and second sub-electrodes are at opposite ends of the bridge pattern;
a first connection line 62 (see figure 13) continuously extending in the column direction to overlap the first electrodes and the bridge pattern disposed between the first and second sub-electrodes, and electrically connecting the first electrodes to each other (via light emitting element 40);
a light emitting element 40 electrically connected to each of at least one of the first electrodes and at least one of the second electrodes; and
each of the first electrodes and each of the second electrodes are alternately disposed in the column direction in the emission area in a plan view.
Regarding the claimed limitation of “an insulating pattern overlapping the first connection line, the insulating pattern disposed between the first connection line and the bridge pattern”, Cho et al. do not explicitly state in the embodiment of figure 13 that an insulating pattern layer overlapping the first connection line, the insulating pattern layer disposed between the first connection line and the bridge pattern.
However, Cho et al. teach in figure 8K and related text an insulating pattern 81 overlapping the first connection line 62, the insulating pattern 81 disposed between the first connection line 61 and the bridge pattern.
In the alternative, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text an insulating pattern layer 470 (the insulating element surrounding the light emitting element 40 as depicted in figure 5C) overlapping the first connection line, the insulating pattern layer 470 disposed between the first connection line 62/61 and the bridge pattern layer in a vertical direction perpendicular to the row direction and the column direction (see figure 5C wherein the insulating pattern layer 470 is in the Z direction).
Further, as illustrated in figure 5C, wrapping the light emitting element 40 with insulating pattern layer 470, would render the structure of figure 13 to have an insulating pattern layer overlapping the first connection line, the insulating pattern disposed between the first connection line and the bridge pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an insulating pattern layer overlapping the first connection line wherein the insulating pattern layer disposed between the first connection line and the bridge pattern in Cho et al.’s device, in order to provide better protection to the device.
In a further alternate rejection, Kim et al. teach in figure 4 and related text an insulating pattern layer 160 overlapping the first connection line 130a (the dark line element separating element 110 and element 160), the insulating pattern layer 160 disposed between the first connection line 130a and the bride pattern CE.
Kim et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices comprising electrical layouts and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Cho et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an insulating pattern layer overlapping the first connection line wherein the insulating pattern layer disposed between the first connection line and the bridge pattern, as taught by Kim et al., in Cho et al.’s device, in order to provide better protection to the device.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed limitations of “the bridge pattern and the first and second sub-electrodes are integral with each other to form the at least one of the second electrodes”, these are process limitations which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
The formation of a by forming first and second substrate layers does not produce a structure which is different from a structure which is formed using only one substrate.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Cho et al. teach in figure 13 and related text that the bridge pattern does not overlap the partition wall 30, but do not teach that the first and second sub-electrodes are disposed on a partition wall.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to dispose the first and second sub-electrodes on the partition wall in prior art’s device in order to provide better insulation to the first and second sub-electrodes.
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the at least one of the first electrodes is disposed between two of the second electrodes adjacent thereto in the column direction.
Regarding claim 5, in the combined device, the insulating pattern is disposed on the bridge pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the first connection line is disposed on a layer different from that of the first electrodes.
Regarding claim 7, in the combined device, the first connection line is disposed on the insulating pattern such that the first connection line is physically disconnected and is spaced apart from the bridge pattern.
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the first connection line comprises: a first part (arbitrarily chosen) overlapping the insulating pattern; and a second part (arbitrarily chosen) other than the first part, and the second part of the first connection line is electrically connected with the first electrodes.
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the pixel further comprises: a first capping layer disposed on the first electrodes (since each electrode comprises pluralities of layers); a second capping layer disposed on the second electrodes; and a third capping layer disposed on the first connection line.
Regarding claim 10, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the first and the second capping layers are disposed on an identical layer (e.g. layer 104, see figure 8k), and the third capping layer and the first and the second capping layers are disposed on different layers
Regarding claim 11, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the pixel further comprises a second connection line electrically connected with the second electrodes, and the second connection line comprises: a first portion of the second connection line extending in the row direction; and a second portion of the second connection line extending in the column direction, and the second portion of the second connection line is integral with the second electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, Cho et al. teach in figure 12 and related text that the second connection line and the first connection line are disposed on different layers.
Regarding claim 13, Cho et al. teach in figure 8K and related text that the pixel further comprises: a partition wall 30; a first contact electrode 62 electrically connecting the at least one of the first electrodes with an end of opposite ends of the light emitting element 40; and a second contact electrode 61 electrically connecting the at least one of the second electrodes with another end of the opposite ends of the light emitting element 40.
Cho et al. do not teach that the partition wall 30 is disposed under each of the first electrodes and the second electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to dispose the partition wall under each of the first electrodes and the second electrodes, in prior art’s device, in order to provide external connections to device electrical.
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al. teach in figure 8K and related text that the pixel further comprises an insulating layer 81 disposed on an upper surface of the light emitting element 40, but does not teach that the first contact electrode and the second contact electrode are spaced apart from each other on the insulating layer and are electrically disconnected from each other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first contact electrode and the second contact electrode are spaced apart from each other on the insulating layer and are electrically disconnected from each other, in prior art’s device, in order to provide external connections to device electrical and in order to adjust the electrical characteristics of the device.
Regarding claim 21, Cho et al. teach in figures 12, 13, 8K and related text that the first connection line 61/62 extends in the column direction to cross the bridge pattern extending in the row direction in a plan view and is a conductive line.
Regarding claim 22, Cho et al. teach in figures 12, 13, 8K and related text that the second electrodes 22 comprise: a first-row second electrode disposed in a first row; and
a second-row second electrode disposed in a second row, the first connection line 62 extends to be disposed between the first and second sub-electrodes of the first-row second electrode and between the first and second sub-electrodes of the second-row second electrode (of two adjacent pixels), the first connection line extends to overlap the bridge pattern of the first-row second electrode and the bridge pattern of the second-row second electrode (see figure 13), and the at least one of the first electrodes is surrounded by the first and second sub-electrodes of the first-row second electrode. Cho et al. do not teach that the first and second sub-electrodes of the second-row second electrode disposed in diagonal directions different from the row direction and the column direction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first and second sub-electrodes of the second-row second electrode disposed in diagonal directions different from the row direction and the column direction in prior art’s device in order to optimize the layout of the device.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that “the second sub- electrodes 22-2 that are spaced apart from each other in the row direction are part of different pixels (PX1 and PX2), rather than the same pixel. Thus, Cho fails to disclose, teach, or even suggest "first and second sub-electrodes of the one pixel spaced apart from each other in a row direction intersecting the column direction, and a bridge pattern of the one pixel connecting the first and second sub-electrodes of the one pixel and extending in the row direction, wherein the first and second sub-electrodes are at opposite ends of the bridge pattern," as recited in amended independent claim 1”.
1. Cho does not teach that “the second sub- electrodes 22-2 that are spaced apart from each other in the row direction are part of different pixels (PX1 and PX2), rather than the same pixel”, as argue by applicants.
Cho explicitly states in paragraph [0154] “The pixel PX may be the first pixel PX1 that emits red light, the second pixel PX2 that emits green light, or the third pixel PX3 that emits blue light. However, the disclosure is not limited thereto, and the pixel PX may emit light of another color”. That is, the one pixel PX can emit different colors as pixels PX1, PX2 and PX3, as depicted in figure 2.
2. Applicants argue that Cho does not teach "a first connection line continuously extending in the column direction to overlap the first electrodes and the bridge pattern disposed between the first and second sub-electrodes, and electrically connecting the first electrodes to each other," as recited in independent claim 1”, because “Cho discloses series of discrete connection electrodes 61 and light emitting devices 40, rather than a continuous connection line”.
2. As depicted in figure 12, Cho teaches a continuous connection line 61 between the connection electrodes 61 and light emitting devices 40.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
4/22/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights