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 .
Claims 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (US 20190237533 A1 – hereinafter Kim-533).
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190237533 A1 – hereinafter Kim-533) in view of Choi et al. (US 20190051859 A1 - hereinafter Choi).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim-533 teaches:
(Previously Presented) A display device (1 – Fig. 1 – [0048] – “display
device 1”) comprising:
a display, the display panel comprising:
a transistor (TFT – Fig. 8 – [0093] – “thin film transistor TFT”);
an insulating layer (207 – Fig. 8 – [0099] – “insulating layer 207”) disposed on the transistor (TFT);
a light emitting element (OLED – Fig. 8 – [0052] – “organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)”) electrically connected to the transistor (TFT) and comprising a first electrode (221 – Fig. 8 – [0100] – “pixel electrode 221”) disposed on the insulating layer (207) a light emitting layer (222 – Fig. 8 – [0103] – “intermediate layer 222 includes a polymer material, the intermediate layer 222 may typically have a structure including a hole transport layer (HTL) and an emission layer (EML)”) disposed on the first electrode (221), and a second electrode (223 – Fig. 8 – [0104] – “the opposite electrode 223 may be integrally formed to cover a plurality of pixels”) disposed on the light emitting layer (222);
a stopper pattern (Fig. 8, annotated, see below – [0111] – “The second shielding layer 1270 may be disposed on a same level as and include a same material as the pixel electrode 221” – hereinafter ‘STP’) disposed spaced apart from the first electrode (221) and on the insulating layer (207);
a pixel definition layer (208 – Fig. 8 – [0100] – “pixel defining layer 208”) disposed on the stopper pattern (1270) and having a first opening (Fig. 8 annotated, see below – [0100] – “pixel defining layer 208 may have an opening corresponding to each pixel, for example, an opening exposing at least the pixel electrode 221 to thereby define each pixel”) – hereinafter ‘FOP’) extending through the pixel definition layer (208) to the first electrode (221) and a second opening (208H – [0118] – “hole 208H in a portion of the pixel defining layer 208”) extending through the pixel definition layer (208) to the stopper pattern (STP); and
a thin film encapsulation layer (300 – Fig. 8 – [0063] – “the encapsulation member 300, which is a thin film encapsulation layer, includes first and second inorganic encapsulation layers 310 and 330 and an organic encapsulation layer 320 interposed therebetween”) disposed on the pixel definition layer (208) and inside the second opening (208H), and covering the light emitting element (OLED), wherein the stopper pattern (STP) is interposed between the insulating layer (207) and the pixel definition layer (208) so as to overlap the second opening (208H) entirely and the stopper pattern (STP) blocks the second opening (208H) from extending into the insulating layer (207),
an electron transport layer (ETL – [0102] – “intermediate layer 222 includes a low molecular material, the intermediate layer 222 may have a structure in which a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), an emission layer (EML), an electron transport layer (ETL), an electron injection layer (EIL) or the like are stacked in a single structure or in a composite structure”) is disposed under the second electrode (223) in the second opening (1270H),
wherein the second opening (208H) has a depth greater than the width (Fig. 8 annotated shows the depth ‘d’ of 208H greater than the width ‘w’), and
wherein the stopper pattern (STP) is provided in a plural, and the plurality of stopper patterns (STP) are spaced apart from each other and electrically isolated from each other (Fig. 8 shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Kim-533 teaches a display, Kim-533 does not explicitly teach a display panel.
However, in an analogous art, Choi teaches
a display (100 – Fig. 4 – [0056] – “display panel 100” – a display panel is a display device), the display panel (100) comprising.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the panel structure as taught by Choi into Kim-533.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Choi in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0005] – “a display panel has improved reliability, and an electronic device having the same is provided.” A display panel is synonymous with a display device.
Regarding claim 2, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Kim-533 further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the stopper pattern
(STP) is disposed on the insulating layer (207) and comprises a same material as the first electrode (221 – [0111] – “The second shielding layer 1270 may be disposed on a same level as and include a same material as the pixel electrode 221”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Kim-533 further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the thin film
encapsulation layer (300) comprises:
a first inorganic layer (310 – Fig. 8 – [0063] – “the encapsulation member 300, which is a thin film encapsulation layer, includes first and second inorganic encapsulation layers 310 and 330 and an organic encapsulation layer 320 interposed therebetween”);
an organic layer (320 – Fig. 8 – [0063] – “the encapsulation member 300, which is a thin film encapsulation layer, includes first and second inorganic encapsulation layers 310 and 330 and an organic encapsulation layer 320 interposed therebetween”) disposed on the first inorganic layer (310); and
a second inorganic layer (330 – Fig. 8 – [0063] – “the encapsulation member 300, which is a thin film encapsulation layer, includes first and second inorganic encapsulation layers 310 and 330 and an organic encapsulation layer 320 interposed therebetween”) disposed on the organic layer (320).
Regarding claim 6, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Kim-533 further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the stopper pattern
(STP) is provided in plural, the second opening (1270H) is provided in plural, and there is one of the stopper patterns (STP) at a base of the second openings (1270H).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi and Paek et al. (US 20160093680 A1 – hereinafter Paek).
Regarding claim 3, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Paek teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 2, wherein the stopper pattern (164 – [0043] – “The auxiliary electrode 164 can be formed of the same material as the first electrode 162”) has a same layered structure as the first electrode ([0042] – “first electrode 162 can further include a reflective layer of an opaque conductive material. For example, the reflective layer can be formed of aluminum-paladium-copper (APC) alloy, and the first electrode 162 can have a triple-layered structure of ITO/APC/ITO” – this is a layered structure and the stopper pattern is the same material therefore the same layer structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electrode layered structure as taught by Paek into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Paek in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of forming the two elements from the same material simultaneously to reduce operating costs.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 4, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Paek teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the second electrode (192 – Fig. 4 – [0048] – “second electrode 192”) is disposed inside the second opening (P-OP2 – Fig. 2 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the electrode structure as taught by Paek into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Paek in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of a light-emitting element.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi and Song et al. (US 20140367651 A1 – hereinafter Song).
Regarding claim 7, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Kim-533 further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting
element (OLED) comprises a plurality of first color light emitting elements ([0052] – “The display 10 may generate a predetermined image by using red, green, blue or white light emitted from, for example, organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)” – hereinafter ‘red’), a plurality of second color light emitting elements ([0052] – “The display 10 may generate a predetermined image by using red, green, blue or white light emitted from, for example, organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)” – hereinafter ‘blue’), and a plurality of third color light emitting elements ([0052] – “The display 10 may generate a predetermined image by using red, green, blue or white light emitted from, for example, organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)” – hereinafter ‘green’), and the stopper pattern (STP) is disposed in a non-light-emitting area (CA – Fig. 1 – [0038] – “auxiliary electrode CA” – auxiliary electrode are non-light emitting areas, Fig. 1 shows this surrounding the anode electrode “AD”, [0056] – “first electrode 21 may function as an anode electrode” – this is associated with the light emitting areas) defined between one light emitting element among the first color light emitting elements, the second light emitting elements adjacent to each other among the second color light emitting elements, and one light emitting element among the third color light emitting elements (OLED – Fig. 1 annotated, see below – {[0050] – “auxiliary electrode CA may be formed around or adjacent the pixel electrode 21”, {[0073] – “OLED includes the first electrode 21, the intermediate layer 25, and the second electrode 27”}, {[0056] – “intermediate layer 25 includes a first organic functional layer 22, an organic emission layer 23”}, {[0060] – “organic emission layer 23 may be patterned as a red light emission layer, a green light emission layer, and a blue light emission layer”}).
Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Song teaches
the stopper pattern is disposed in a non-light-emitting area (CA – Fig. 1 – [0038] – “auxiliary electrode CA” – auxiliary electrode are non-light emitting areas, Fig. 1 shows this surrounding the anode electrode “AD”, [0056] – “first electrode 21 may function as an anode electrode” – this is associated with the light emitting areas) defined between one light emitting element among the first color light emitting elements, the second light emitting elements adjacent to each other among the second color light emitting elements, and one light emitting element among the third color light emitting elements (OLED – Fig. 1 annotated, see below – {[0050] – “auxiliary electrode CA may be formed around or adjacent the pixel electrode 21”, {[0073] – “OLED includes the first electrode 21, the intermediate layer 25, and the second electrode 27”}, {[0056] – “intermediate layer 25 includes a first organic functional layer 22, an organic emission layer 23”}, {[0060] – “organic emission layer 23 may be patterned as a red light emission layer, a green light emission layer, and a blue light emission layer”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the stopper pattern location as taught by Song into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Song in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results to provide individual light emitting elements separated from each other while strengthening the device due to additional metal material.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 13, Kim-533 as modified by Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Song teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the transistor (TFT – Fi6. 6 – [0039] – “thin film transistor TFT”) comprises a semiconductor pattern (11 – Fig. 6 – [0042] – “layer 11 may be formed by patterning a polysilicon layer”) and a gate (13 – Fig. 6 – [0039] – “gate electrode 13”), and the stopper pattern (CA – Fig. 6 – [0038] – “auxiliary electrode CA” – this forms a stopper pattern) is disposed under the insulating layer (205 – Fig. 6 – [0055] – “insulating layer 205”) and comprises a same material as the gate ({[0050] – “auxiliary electrode CA may be formed of a material that is the same as or different from the source/drain electrodes 15 and 17”}, {[0049] – “source/drain electrodes 15 and 17 may be formed of the same conductive material as that of the gate electrode 13”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the stopper pattern location and gate material as taught by Song into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Song in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of forming the two elements from the same material to reduce operating costs.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi, Song, and Paek.
Regarding claim 8, Kim-533 as modified by Choi and Song, teaches claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Song teaches
the non-light-emitting area (CA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the non-light emitting area as taught by Song into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Song in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 7.
Kim-533, Choi, and Song do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Paek teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 7, wherein the stopper pattern (164) is provided in plural, and two or more stopper patterns are disposed ([0043] – “The auxiliary electrode 164 can extend in the first direction and the second direction over the substrate 110 and include an opening corresponding to each pixel region to have a lattice shape” – a lattice shape is defined as a regularly repeating pattern, therefore this meets the element as defined here) in the non-light-emitting area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the plurality of stopper patterns as taught by Paek into Kim-533, Choi, and Song.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Paek in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results to provide individual light emitting elements separated from each other while strengthening the device due to additional metal material.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi and Tanaka et al. (US 20190363267 A1 – hereinafter Tanaka).
Regarding claim 9, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Tanaka teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel definition layer (BK – Fig. 1 – [0100] – “the banks BK include the plurality of banks BK1 to BK6 that are separated from each other” – this is a pixel definition layer) comprises:
a first area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – this is not a light emitting area and is considered the first area – hereinafter ‘P-A1’) having a first thickness (BK1b – Fig. 3 – [0117] – “high bank portion BK1b” – this has a first thickness); and
a second area (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – this is not a light emitting area and is considered the second area – hereinafter ‘P-A2’) having a second thickness (BK2 – Fig. 3 – [0114] – “banks BK2” – this has a second thickness) smaller than the first thickness (Fig. 3 shows this) , and the second opening (P-OP2) (tan (S11 – Fig. 3 – [0114] – “slits S11 are provided between the banks BK1 and the banks BK2” – this corresponds to the second opening in that it is not a light emitting opening) is defined in each of the first area (P-A1) and the second area (S12 – Fig. 3 – [0135] – “slits S12 between the banks BK2 and the banks BK3” – this corresponds to the second opening in that it is not a light emitting opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the thickness in different areas as taught by Tanaka into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Tanaka in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results [0012 – “capable of reducing stress.”
Tanaka drawings are not to scale however, thicknesses being smaller than one another do not require a scale and can be interpreted from the drawings, MPEP 2121.04 and MPEP 2125 II.
Regarding claim 10, Kim-533 as modified by Choi and Tanaka, teaches claim 9 from which claim 10 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Tanaka teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 9, wherein the second opening (S16 – Fig. 3 – [0114] – “slits S16 are provided between the banks BK4 and the banks BK5” – this corresponds to the second opening in that it is not a light emitting opening) defined in the second area (P-A2) further extends through the insulating layer (19A’ – Fig. 1 – [0110] – “insulating film pattern portions 19A and 19A′” – Fig. 3 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the second opening structure as taught by Tanaka into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Tanaka in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi, Song, and Park et al. (US 20200371549 A1 - hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 12, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Song teaches
wherein the stopper pattern (CA – Fig. 6 – [0038] – “auxiliary electrode CA” – this forms a stopper pattern”) is disposed under the insulating layer (205 – Fig. 6 – [0055] – “insulating layer 205”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the stopper pattern location as taught by Song into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Song in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 7.
Kim-533, Choi, and Song do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, further comprising a connection
electrode (CNP2 – Fig. 9 – [0110] – “connection pattern CNP2”) disposed between the transistor (GE – Fig. 9 – [0099] – “gate electrode GE of the transistor”) and the light emitting element (EML – Fig. 9 – [0117] – “light emitting film EML”) and electrically connected to the transistor (GE) and the light emitting element (EML), wherein the stopper pattern is disposed under the insulating layer and comprises a same material as the connection electrode (CNP – [0110] – “second connection pattern CNP2 may be formed of a metal such as gold (Au), silver (Ag), aluminum (AI), molybdenum (Mo), chromium (Cr), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), neodymium, copper (Cu), and/or an alloy of metals”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the connection electrode location and material as taught by Park into Kim-533, Choi, and Song.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of forming the two elements from the same material to reduce operating costs.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim-533 in view of Choi and Park.
Regarding claim 14, Kim-533 as modified by Choi, teaches claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 1, further comprising an input sensor (ISM2 – Fig. 9 – [0131] – “sensing electrode layer ISM2”) disposed on the display panel (DP – [0068] – “display device DP”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the input sensor as taught by Park into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of an input sensing structure for the display device.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 15, Kim-533 as modified by Choi and Park, teaches claim 14 from which claim 15 depends. Kim-533 further teaches
(Original) The display device of claim 14, further comprising an anti-
reflective unit (50 and 60 – Fig. 2A – {[0056] – “anti-reflection layer 50”}, {[0057] – “window 60}) disposed on the input sensor, wherein the anti-reflective unit (50 – Fig. 2A – [0056] – “anti-reflection layer 50”) comprises a color filter (50 – Fig. 2A – [0056] – “anti-reflection layer 50 may include a black matrix and a color filter”) overlapping the first opening (61 – Fig. 2A – [0057] – “window 60 may include a light transmitting area 61 corresponding to the display area DA”) and a light blocking pattern (50 – Fig. 2A – [0056] – “anti-reflection layer 50 may include a black matrix and a color filter” – a black matrix is a light blocking pattern) overlapping the second opening (62 – Fig. 2A – [0057] – “window 60 may include a light shielding area 62 corresponding to the peripheral area PA”).
Kim-533 and Choi do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Park teaches
the input sensor (ISM2 – Fig. 9 – [0131] – “sensing electrode layer ISM2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the input sensor as taught by Park into Kim-533 and Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In reference to claim 16, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to one skilled in the art, the instant invention regarding forming a mask pattern on the pixel definition layer and in the first opening so as to be in contact with the first electrode in combination with the other recited limitations.
Claims 18-20 depend on claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20220102471 A1, US 20190206945 A1,
and US 20220181399 A1 are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including “stopper pattern”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897