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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed March 2, 2026 have been entered and considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 1, Species 1A, and Species A in the reply filed on May 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 20, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 9806279 B2), in view of Cho et al. (US 11563074 B2) and Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Im et al. teaches:
A display device comprising:
a substrate [310, Col. 18, Lines 33-37, Fig. 8];
a semiconductor layer [224, Col. 18, Lines 38-41; Col. 22, Lines 17-18, Fig. 8] on the substrate [310];
a source electrode [322, Col. 18, Lines 55-63, Fig. 8] and a drain electrode [323, Col. 18, Lines 55-63, Fig. 8] on the semiconductor layer [324];
an auxiliary electrode [325, Col. 19, Lines 54-63, Fig. 8]
a first electrode [318, Col. 19, Lines 14-17, Fig. 8] electrically connected with the source electrode [222] or the drain electrode [223];
a light emitting element layer [330, Col. 21, Lines 35-41, Fig. 8] on the first electrode [318]; and
a second electrode [328, Col. 21, Lines 51-53, Fig. 8] on the light emitting element layer [330],
wherein the auxiliary electrode [325] comprises at least one groove [V “predetermined void”, Col. 20, Lines 38-55, Fig. 8] located inside the auxiliary electrode [325].
Im et al. does not teach:
an auxiliary electrode on a same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Cho et al. teaches:
an auxiliary electrode [VL “power supply wire/auxiliary wire”, Col. 8, Lines 41-47, Fig. 2] on a same layer as the source electrode [SE] and the drain electrode [DE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cho et al. into the teachings of Im et al. to include an auxiliary electrode on a same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode, for the purpose of increasing density, enhancing connection reliability and simpler to manufacture. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts.
Im et al. and Cho et al. do not teach:
wherein the auxiliary electrode comprises at least one groove located inside the auxiliary electrode so as to be spaced from an outer periphery of the auxiliary electrode.
and the light emitting element layer and the second electrode are located in a groove of the at least one groove.
Kim et al. teaches:
wherein the auxiliary electrode [200, paragraph [0050-0061], Fig. 5] comprises at least one groove [C, “concave region”, paragraph [0052-0054], Fig. 5] located inside the auxiliary electrode [300, Fig. 5] so as to be spaced from an outer periphery of the auxiliary electrode [300, Fig. 5].
and the light emitting element layer [111, paragraph [0051-0054], Fig. 5] and the second electrode [112, paragraph [0051-0055], [0061], Fig. 5] are located in a groove [C, Fig. 5] of the at least one groove [C, Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. into the teachings of Im et al. and Cho et al. to include wherein the auxiliary electrode comprises at least one groove located inside the auxiliary electrode so as to be spaced from an outer periphery of the auxiliary electrode, and the light emitting element layer and the second electrode are located in a groove of the at least one groove, for the purpose of resistance of the second electrode is reduced by the auxiliary electrode, the voltage drop is reduced, and the entire area is large. It is possible to transmit current uniformly, and it is possible to improve luminance uniformity even in a large area.
Regarding claim 2, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al. further teaches:
the second electrode [328, Col. 20, Lines 63-67; Col. 24, Lines 59-67 to Col. 25, Lines 1-3, Fig. 8] directly contacts a side surface of the auxiliary electrode [325, Fig. 8] in the groove [V, Fig. 8] of the auxiliary electrode [325, Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 3, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al. further teaches:
the auxiliary electrode [325] has an undercut structure [Corresponds to predetermined void V, Col. 20, Lines 46-55, Fig. 8-9E] in which a side surface is positioned inside a top surface,
the light emitting element layer [330] is in direct contact with the auxiliary electrode [325] on the side surface of the auxiliary electrode [325], and
a part of the second electrode [328, Fig. 8] and the auxiliary electrode [325] directly contact on the side surface of the auxiliary electrode [325, Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 4, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 3.
Im et al. further teaches:
wherein a region where the second electrode [328] and the auxiliary electrode [325] directly contact is farther from the substrate [310] than a region where the light emitting element layer [330] and the auxiliary electrode [325] directly contact. [See Fig. 8]
Regarding claim 5, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al. further teaches:
the auxiliary electrode [325, Col. 19, Lines 54-67 to Col. 20, Lines 1-19, Fig. 8] comprises a first layer [325a], a second layer [325b], and a third layer [325c], and
a planar area of the second layer [325b, Col. 20, Lines 46-55, Fig. 8, 9A-9E] is narrower than planar areas of the first layer [325a] and the third layer [325c].
Regarding claim 8, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al. further teaches:
wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode [325, Col. 18, Lines 21-32, Fig. 4, 8] is polygonal.
Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Im et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode is circular.
Cho et al. teaches:
wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode is circular [Col. 13, Lines 9-13; Col. 13, Lines 28-47, Fig. 8-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cho et al. into the teachings of Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode is circular, for the purpose of simpler to manufacture, reducing the overall size of device, increasing density, creating better contact points within the device and improving performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(I) Aesthetic Design Changes and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shape.
Regarding claim 9, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al. further teaches:
wherein a planar shape of a groove [V, Fig. 4, 8, 9C-9E] of the at least one groove [V] is linear, or polygonal.
Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Im et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a planar shape of a groove of the at least one groove is circular.
Cho et al. teaches:
wherein a planar shape of a groove [RS] of the at least one groove [RS] is circular. [Col. 13, Lines 9-13; Col. 13, Lines 28-47, Fig. 8-9]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cho et al. into the teachings of Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a planar shape of a groove of the at least one groove is circular, for the purpose of simpler to manufacture, reducing overall size of the device, increasing density, creating better contact points within the device, and improving performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(I) Aesthetic Design Changes and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shapes.
Regarding claim 10, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. disclose the above claimed subject matter.
However, Im et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode and a planar shape of a groove of the at least one groove are the same.
Cho et al. teaches:
wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode [VL] and a planar shape of a groove [RS “recessed part”, Fig. 8-9] of the at least one groove are the same. [Col. 13, Lines 9-13; Col. 13, Lines 28-47, Fig. 8-9]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Cho et al. into the teachings of Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a planar shape of the auxiliary electrode and a planar shape of a groove of the at least one groove are the same, for the purpose of making simpler to manufacture, reducing overall size of device, increasing density and symmetry, creating better contact points within the device and increasing performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) Changes in Shapes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 9806279 B2), in view of Cho et al. (US 11563074 B2) and Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20180003965 A).
Regarding claim 6, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of a groove of the at least one groove of the auxiliary electrode is wider than a thickness of the auxiliary electrode.
Lee et al. teaches:
wherein a width [L2, paragraph [0120, 0142], Fig. 12, 15] of a groove [“hole”, Paragraph [0120, 0142, Fig. 12, 15] of the at least one groove of the auxiliary electrode [630] is wider than a thickness of the auxiliary electrode [630, Fig. 12, 15]. [See Fig. 15 below]
PNG
media_image1.png
696
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[MPEP 2125(I) Drawings can be used as Prior Art]
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as "enabled disclosures."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the teachings of Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a width of a groove of the at least one groove of the auxiliary electrode is wider than a thickness of the auxiliary electrode, for the purpose of increasing contact area, sufficiently deposit features and improve performance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 9806279 B2), in view of Cho et al. (US 11563074 B2) and Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113013362 A).
Regarding claim 7, Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. teach the display device of claim 1.
Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. do not teach:
wherein a width of a groove of the at least one groove of the auxiliary electrode is 1,000 A to 20,000 A.
Zhou et al. teaches:
wherein a width of a groove [10, paragraph [n0049-n0052], Fig. 1-3] of the at least one groove [10] of the auxiliary electrode [5] is 1,000 A to 20,000 A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou et al. into the teachings of Im et al., Cho et al. and Kim et al. to include wherein a width of a groove of the at least one groove of the auxiliary electrode is 1,000 A to 20,000 A, for the purpose of ensuring large enough contact area while maximizing overall size, creating better connections, reducing resistance, improving performance and yield, and ensuring good conductivity and low resistance per unit volume. See also, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 1-2, Section: Rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed March 2, 2026 that the prior art of record does not teach the amendment to independent claim 1. Examiner agrees with Applicant; However, after a new line of search and consideration of the prior art, the amended limitations of independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1).
Applicant argues that the combination of primary reference Im et al. (US 9806279 B2) and secondary reference Sato et al. (US 20140209890 A1) is not proper. Examiner found Applicants argument to be persuasive. Rejections utilizing Sato et al. as a reference have been removed. However, this does not place independent claim 1 in condition for allowance due to the introduction of newly cited source Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1).
Applicant argues on pages 2-3, Section: Rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103, in remarks filed March 2, 2026 that dependent claims 2-10 should be in condition for allowance due to their dependence on independent claim 1. Examiner disagrees with Applicant due to the introduction of newly cited source Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1).
In summary, the amendments to independent claim 1 can be overcome by newly cited source Kim et al. (KR 102097303 B1). Previously presented secondary reference Sato et al. (US 20140209890 A1) has been removed. All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 1 are rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MICHAEL HELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-1422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm EST.
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.
/D.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2815 03/18/2026
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815