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 and Species A, corresponding to claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 3/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0280632 A1) in view of Fujimura (US 2009/0151984 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a display device (Fig. 3) comprising:
a first electrode (21; ¶ 0062) and a second electrode (22; ¶ 0062), each extending in one direction on a substrate (11), the first and second electrodes being spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3);
an organic layer (combination of 26, 51, and 27; ¶ 0116 and ¶ 0122) on the first and second electrodes, the organic layer comprising a plurality of conductive regions (26 and 27, ¶ 0116) and an insulating region (51; ¶ 0122);
light-emitting elements (“one or more light emitting elements 30”, ¶ 0054) on the organic layer and on the first and second electrodes; and
a first connecting electrode (CDP; ¶ 0079) coupled to first end portions of the light-emitting elements and one of the plurality of conductive regions, and a second connecting electrode (VL2; ¶ 0079) coupled to second end portions of the light-emitting elements and another one of the plurality of conductive regions,
wherein:
the organic layer comprises PEDOT:PSS (¶ 0116).
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the surface roughness of the insulating region is greater than a surface roughness of the plurality of conductive regions.
Fujimura discloses that increasing the surface roughness of insulating layers improves their adhesion (¶ 0127). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to maximize the surface roughness of the insulating region of Kim (such that the surface roughness of the adhesion layer is higher than that of the plurality of conductive regions) for this benefit.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein the plurality of conductive regions comprise a first conductive region (26), which overlaps with the first electrode and the first connecting electrode, and a second conductive region (27), which overlaps with the second electrode and the second connecting electrode (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses wherein a first surface of the first conductive region is in contact with the first electrode (see Fig. 3), a second surface of the first conductive region is in contact with the first connecting electrode (see Fig. 3), a first surface of the second conductive region is in contact with the second electrode (see Fig. 3), and a second surface of the second conductive region is in contact with the second connecting electrode (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein the insulating region is a region of the organic layer other than the conductive regions (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses wherein:
the substrate comprises a display area (area between the outer edges of banks 40) and a pad area (remaining portion),
the first electrode, the second electrode, the light-emitting elements, the first connecting electrode, and the second connecting electrode are in the display area, and the organic layer is in the display area and the pad area (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses wherein the pad area comprises a pad electrode (DT_SD2) on the substrate, a pad electrode upper layer (VL1) on the pad electrode, the organic layer on the pad electrode upper layer, and a pad electrode capping layer (52) on the organic layer.
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses wherein the pad electrode upper layer comprises the same material as the first electrode or the second electrode (“aluminum”, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0081, and ¶ 0095),
the pad electrode capping layer comprises the same material as the first connecting electrode or the second connecting electrode (“aluminum”, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0081, and ¶ 0122), and
the organic layer further comprises a third conductive region (27), which overlaps with the pad electrode upper layer (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses wherein a first surface of the third conductive region is in contact with the pad electrode upper layer, and a second surface of the third conductive region is in contact with the pad electrode capping layer (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein the organic layer further comprises conductive particles (¶ 0010).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the relative amount of particles in the organic layer to determine if it falls within the claimed range. However, it is a matter of routine experimentation to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of particles in the organic layer to determine the workable ranges and, as such, forming the organic layer to have an amount of conductive particles within the claimed range is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses wherein the conductive particles comprise a metal (¶ 0010).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Fujimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0068506 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘632 further discloses wherein the plurality of conductive regions comprise a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ 0116).
Kim ‘632 differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a compound of Formula 2 for the insulating region with an insulating region formed form from a different compound. However, insulating regions formed from a compound of Formula 2 and the corresponding function was known in the art (¶ 0049 of Kim ‘506). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known composition of a compound of Formula 2 as taught by Kim ‘506 for insulating region of Kim ‘632 and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815