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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered. No claim(s) has/have been canceled or added. Therefore, claim(s) 9-10 and 21-38 continue to be pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0013593, hereinafter “Watanabe”, previously cited) in view of Hakii et al. (US 2016/0254488, hereinafter “Hakii”, previously cited) and Choi et al. (US 2016/0240819, hereinafter “Choi”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe teaches in Fig. 2 (shown below) and related text a method, comprising:
forming an electrode layer (12A, Fig. 2, ¶¶[0085] and [0226]) on an insulation layer (¶[0087]), wherein the electrode layer is electrically connected to an integrated circuit (¶[0088]) through a via plug (11A, Fig. 2 and ¶[0088]) in the insulation layer (Fig. 2);
etching the electrode layer (12A, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0126] and [0226]) to obtain a first electrode (12A, Fig. 2);
forming a spacer layer (13, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0105]-[0110], [0127] and [0283]) covering a sidewall of the first electrode (Fig. 2), wherein the spacer layer (13, Fig. 2, ¶¶[0105] and [0283]) has a thickness less than a thickness of the first electrode layer (12A, Fig. 2 and ¶[0172]); and
forming a display material layer (12B, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0085] and [0285]) and a second electrode (12C, Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0084] and [0285]) on the first electrode and the spacer layer (Fig. 2), wherein the display material layer comprises an organic material stack (¶[0113]) formed over the first electrode (Fig. 2), the second electrode is formed over the organic material stack (12B, Fig. 2) and the spacer layer (13, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watanabe, however, does not explicitly teach that a deposition rate of forming the electrode layer is from about 30Å per second to about 200Å per second, such that a thickness of the electrode layer is between about 300Å to about 900Å. Watanabe also does not explicitly teach that an interface formed by the second electrode and the spacer layer has a portion below a top surface of the first electrode.
To begin with, forming an electrode layer to the claimed thicknesses at the claimed deposition rate is well-known in the art as evidenced by Hakii. Specifically, Hakii, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that an electrode layer (¶¶[0063] and [0230]-[0231]) of a light emitting element, made from the same material as that disclosed by the applicant (e.g. ITO, ¶[0038] of the instant application as published) and Watanabe (¶[0226]) can be formed by the same process to a thickness in a range from about 10 nm (100 Å) to about 100 nm (1000Å) (¶¶[0063] and [0231]), which encompasses the claimed range, at a deposition rate of 10 nm/sec (100 Å/sec) (¶¶[0248], [0282], [0344], [0374]), which falls within the claimed range.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electrode layer disclosed by Watanabe at the deposition rate and the thicknesses disclosed by Hakii in order to form the electrode layer of the light emitting device with desired characteristics.
Moreover, Choi, teaches in Figs. 1-3 (shown below) and related text, that an organic material stack (240, Fig. 3 and ¶[0061]) formed over a bottom electrode (230, Fig. 3 and ¶[0061]) and a spacer layer (260, Fig. 3 and ¶[0061]) so as to prevent the spacer layer from being in contact with a top electrode layer (250, Fig. 3 and ¶[0061]), in a similar way to that disclosed by Watanabe and Hakii, and formed over a bottom electrode (130, Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0041]) and a spacer layer (160, Fig. 6B and ¶[0151]) such that a top electrode (150, Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0041]) is in contact with the spacer layer so that an interface is formed by the top electrode and the spacer layer having a portion below the top surface of the bottom electrode, are alternative ways of forming organic material stack layers over the electrode layer, that can be used in order to meet specific design requirements for the display device, including improving light extraction efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus (¶[0059]).
PNG
media_image2.png
645
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
217
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps and elements, using such steps and elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form the organic material stack layer disclosed by Watanabe and Hakii, so that the top electrode the interface formed by the top electrode and the spacer layer has a portion below the top surface of the bottom electrode, as disclosed by Choi, in order to meet specific design requirements for the display device, including improving light extraction efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Hakii and Choi, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gotrik et al. (US 2020/0016879, hereinafter “Gotrik”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10 (9), the combined teaching of Watanabe, Hakii and Choi was discussed above in the rejection of claim 9. Watanabe, Hakii and Choi, however, do not explicitly teach that a power of forming the electrode layer is from about 1500W to about 3150W. Nonetheless, forming the electrode layer within the claimed power range is well-known in the art as evidenced by Gotrik. Specifically, Gotrik, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that an electrode layer similar to that disclosed by Watanabe, Hakii and Choi formed by the same process can be formed at a power of 2000 W.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electrode layer disclosed by Watanabe, Hakii and Choi at the power disclosed by Gotrik as doing so would amount to nothing other than forming a known layer using known processing conditions.
Claim(s) 31-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 2020/0411617, hereinafter “Kishimoto”, previously cited) in view of view of Ko et al. (US 2021/0057504, hereinafter “Ko”, previously cited) and Ukigaya et al. (US 2019/0043934, hereinafter “Ukigaya”, previously cited) with Yokoyama et al. (US 2006/0145159, hereinafter “Yokoyama”, previously cited) used as evidentiary reference to show that layer disclosed by Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya is considered a blocking/barrier layer).
Regarding claim 31, Kishimoto teaches in Figs. 1 and 3A-3G (Fig. 1 shown below) and related text, a method, comprising:
forming a bottom electrode (e.g. middle layer of electrode 41 formed of Ag or APC, Fig. 1 and ¶[0044]) over a dielectric layer (32, Fig. 1 and ¶[0031]),
forming a top blocking layer (e.g. top layer of electrode 41 is ITO, Fig. 1 and ¶[0044], where it is noted that the top layer disclosed by Kishimoto is considered a blocking layer as evidenced by Yokoyama, ¶¶[0049]-[0050]) over the bottom electrode (e.g. middle layer of 41 made of Ag or APC, Fig. 1), wherein the top blocking layer comprises a different material from the bottom electrode (e.g. ITO and Ag, ¶[0044]);
forming a spacer layer (42, Fig. 1 and ¶[0045]) over the bottom electrode, the spacer layer having an opening directly above the top blocking layer (Fig. 1);
forming an organic material stack (43, Fig. 1 and ¶[0031]) in the opening in the spacer layer; and
forming a top electrode (44, Fig. 1 and ¶[0045]) in contact with the spacer layer and the organic material stack, wherein an interface formed by the top electrode and the spacer layer has a portion below the top surface of the bottom electrode (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
369
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kishimoto, however, does not explicitly teach that the bottom electrode has a tapered sidewall continuously extending from a bottom surface of the bottom electrode to a top surface of the bottom electrode. Kishimoto also does not explicitly teach that the top blocking layer has a recessed region and, as a result that the organic material stack is formed in the recessed region in the top blocking layer.
To begin with, forming a bottom electrode having a tapered sidewall continuously extending from a bottom surface of the bottom electrode to a top surface of the bottom electrode instead of vertical sidewall is well-known in the art as evidenced by Ko (Fig. 1). Specifically, Ko, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 1 (shown below) and related text, that a bottom electrode (190, Fig. 1) having a tapered sidewall continuously extending from a bottom surface of the bottom electrode to a top surface of the bottom electrode (190, Fig. 1) maybe used in a display device similar to that disclosed by Kishimoto, in order to at least help improve the edge effect of the pixel area.
PNG
media_image5.png
385
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps and elements, using such steps and elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form the bottom electrode disclosed by Kishimoto with the tapered sidewall continuously extending from the bottom surface of the bottom electrode to the top surface of the bottom electrode, as disclosed by Ko, in order to at least help improve the edge effect of the pixel area.
Moreover, Ukigaya, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Figs. 5A-5E (shown above) that a top blocking layer (113, Fig. 5E and ¶[0045]), similar to that disclosed by Kishimoto, can have a recessed region (Fig. 5E) in which an organic material stack (130, Fig. 5E) is formed in order to adjust hole injection efficiency (¶[0045]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed method steps, using such steps would lead to predictable results and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the top blocking layer disclosed by Kishimoto with a recessed region disclosed by Ukigaya, in order to adjust hole injection efficiency. It is noted that when the top blocking layer disclosed by Kishimoto includes a recessed region disclosed by Ukigaya, the organic material stack would be formed in the recessed region in top blocking layer (Kishimoto, Fig. 1 and, Ukigaya, Fig. 5E).
Regarding claim 32 (31), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses wherein the spacer layer (Kishimoto, 42, Fig. 1) is a single-layered film (Kishimoto, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33 (31), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses, wherein the spacer layer (Kishimoto, 42, Fig. 1) forms a first interface with the bottom electrode (Kishimoto, 41, Fig. 1 and Ko, 190, Fig. 1) and a second interface with the top electrode (Kishimoto, 44, Fig. 1), and the first interface is parallel with the second interface (i.e. when the bottom electrode of Kishimoto has a tapered sidewall as disclosed by Ko the first interface is parallel with the second interface).
Regarding claim 34 (31), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses wherein the top blocking layer (Kishimoto, i.e. top layer of 41, Fig. 1, Ko, 191, Fig. 1 and Ukigaya, 113, Fig. 5E) has a tapered sidewall aligned with the tapered sidewall of the bottom electrode (Kishimoto, Fig. 1 and Ko, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35 (34), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses wherein the tapered sidewall of the top blocking layer (Kishimoto, Fig. 1 and Ko, Fig. 1) continuously extends from a bottom surface of the top blocking layer to a top surface of the top blocking layer (Kishimoto, Fig. 1 and Ko, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 36 (31), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya further discloses forming a bottom blocking layer (Kishimoto, i.e. bottom layer of 41, Fig. 1 and ¶[0044], Ko, 193, Fig. 1 and Ukigaya, 111, Fig. 5E) below the bottom electrode (Kishimoto, i.e. middle layer of 41, Fig. 1 and ¶[0044], Ko, 192, Fig. 1 and Ukigaya, 112, Fig. 5E).
Regarding claim 37 (36), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses wherein the bottom blocking layer (Kishimoto, i.e. bottom layer of 41, Fig. 1, Ko, 193, Fig. 1) has a tapered sidewall aligned with the tapered sidewall of the bottom electrode (Kishimoto, i.e. middle layer of 41, Fig. 1 and ¶[0044], Ko, 192, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 38 (37), the combined teaching of Kishimoto, Ko and Ukigaya discloses wherein the tapered sidewall of the bottom blocking layer (Kishimoto, i.e. bottom layer of 41, Fig. 1, Ko, 1193, Fig. 1) continuously extends from a bottom surface of the bottom blocking layer to a top surface of the top blocking layer (Ko, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21-30 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method of forming a display device, particularly characterized forming a top electrode over the organic material stack and the spacer layer, the top electrode forming a first interface with a sidewall of the opening in the spacer layer, the organic material stack forming a second interface with the sidewall of the opening in the spacer layer, the first interface being smaller than the second interface, wherein an interface formed by the top electrode and the spacer layer has a portion below the top surface of the bottom electrode and wherein the organic material stack has a maximum width equal to the width of the opening formed in the spacer layer, in combination with all other method steps recited in the claim 21. Claim(s) 22-30 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim(s) 21, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 21, is/are allowed for the similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 26, 2026, with respect to claims 9 and 31 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 8 of the filed response the Applicant argues that “Watanabe includes organic layer 12B because the second electrode, element 12C, and the spacer, element 13. (Watanabe at Figure 2). Watanabe states that organic layer 12B includes "hole injection layer 12B1 is a buffer layer for increasing hole injection efficiency into the light emitting layer 12B3 and for suppressing a leak." (Watanabe at paragraph 0114). Watanabe further states "An object of the present disclosure is to provide a display device and an electronic device capable of suppressing a leak of a drive current generated between adjacent light emitting elements." (Watanabe at paragraph 0007). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the intended purpose of Watanabe is to reduce current leaks; and that the presence of organic layer 12B between the second electrode and the spacer helps to suppress current leaks due to the presence of hole injection layer 12B1. Further, Watanabe states that organic layer 12B is common to all subpixels. (Watanabe at paragraph 0113). In order to modify Watanabe based on Choi to form an interface between element 12C and element 13, as asserted in the Office Action, would require forming a gap or discontinuity in the organic layer 12B of Watanabe. Such a discontinuity would necessarily remove the hole injection layer 12B1 from at least a portion of the structure of Watanabe. This would increase the risk of current leakage in direct contrast to the stated purpose of Watanabe. Further, forming the discontinuity in the organic layer 12B of Watanabe would cause the organic layer 12B to no longer be common to all subpixels, as explicitly required by Watanabe. Therefore, based on MPEP 2143.01, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable motivation to modify Watanabe in the manner asserted by the Office”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
To begin with, while Watanabe may be disclosing the benefits afforded by the continuous organic layer, Choi nonetheless discloses in Figs. 1-3 that a device similar to that disclosed by Watanabe, such as that shown in Fig. 3 of Choi, which includes a commonly provided display material (¶[0068]), similar to that disclosed by Watanabe, and a device that includes display material formed in a discontinuous manner, so as to allow for an interface to be formed between a second electrode and the spacer layer, are known alternative device structure that can be used in order to meet specific design requirement for the device, including improving light extraction efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus (¶¶[0059], [0075]-[0079]). The proposed modification to Watanabe would not render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as argued by the Applicant. In particular, modifying display device disclosed by Watanabe based on the teaching of Choi would not alter the display device of Watanabe to the extent that its broad function (displaying) could no longer be carried out. Specifically, modification to the display device of Watanabe would not affect the broad function of display device disclosed by Watanabe. While the device of Watanabe as modified by Choi may not fully benefit from all the advantages disclosed by Watanabe, such device would nonetheless function and have other benefits. Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the combined teaching of Watanabe and Choi would not render the device of Watanabe unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, but rather provides an alternative, equivalent device design that would allow to meet specific design requirements for the device, including improving light extraction efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus.
Moreover, on page 10, the Applicant argues with respect to claim 31 that Kishimoto fails to teach “wherein the top blocking layer comprises a different material from the bottom electrode." Namely, the Applicant states that “[t]he Office interpreted a top of element 41 as corresponding to the recited top blocking layer; and a middle of element 41 as corresponding to the recited bottom electrode. (Office Action at page 13). Element 41 cannot reasonably be interpreted as having a different material from itself. Therefore, Kishimoto cannot reasonably teach or suggest the recited claim language”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 31, Kishimoto teaches that the element 41 is a three layer structure (similar to that disclosed by the Applicant in Fig. 1, which includes layers 144, 142, 146), where the top and bottom layers of the three layer structure disclosed by Kishimoto, include, for example, ITO with a metal layer, such as Ag or APC, interposed therebetween (¶[0044]). Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s argument Kishimoto explicitly teaches wherein a top blocking layer (i.e. top layer of element 41 comprising ITO) comprises a different material from the bottom electrode (i.e. middle layer of element 41 comprising Ag or APC).
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 ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights