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 .
Specification
Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the title filed on February 25, 2026. The objection to specification in the previous Office Action filed on December 04, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. To be more specific, claim 17 recites “a conductive resin material” in line 2, and claim 1, upon which claim 17 depends, also recites “a conductive resin material” in line 7. Therefore, the claim scope is not clear. For the purpose of examination, “a conductive resin material” in claim 17 is interpreted as “the conductive resin material.” Claim 18 is rejected as it depends upon claim 17.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuto (JP2003017274A, hereinafter, “Kazuto”), prior art of record, in view of Peng et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0047931 A1, hereinafter, “Peng”).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuto discloses an electroluminescence display (see Kazuto, FIG. 1) comprising:
a substrate (12, FIG. 1);
an anode electrode (14, FIG. 1) on the substrate (12);
an emission layer (16, FIG. 1) on the anode electrode (14); and
a cathode electrode (18, FIG. 1) on the emission layer (16), the cathode electrode (18) including a plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D, FIG. 1) that are sequentially stacked (FIG. 1).
Kazuto is silent regarding that the plurality of conductive layers of the cathode electrode include a conductive resin material.
Peng, however, discloses a display (see Peng, FIG. 1), comprising a cathode electrode (400, FIG. 1) including a conductive resin material (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form Kazuto’s plurality of conductive layers of the cathode electrode including a conductive resin material, as taught by Peng, since the selection of a known material (a conductive resin material) based on its suitability for its intended use (to form a cathode) supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D) further include: a first metal oxide layer (18B, ¶ [0018]) including a metal oxide material (ITO, ¶ [0018]); a first metal layer (18C, ¶ [0018]) on the first metal oxide layer (18B), the first metal layer (18C) including a metal material (Al, ¶ [0018]); and a second metal oxide layer (18D, ¶ [0018]) on the first metal layer (18C), the second metal oxide layer (18D) including the metal oxide material (ITO, ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 2.
Kazuto is silent regarding that the plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D) further include a second metal layer having the metal material, the second metal layer on the second metal oxide layer.
However, Kazuto discloses the cathode electrode (18) comprises alternate layers of metal oxide and metal (ITO and Al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form another pair of ITO and Al (18E+18F) on 18A-18D, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP § 2144.06 (I). Accordingly, the plurality of conductive layers further include a second metal layer (18E) having the metal material (Al), the second metal layer (18E) on the second metal oxide layer (18D).
Regarding claim 4, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D) further include: a first metal layer (18A, ¶ [0018]) including a metal material (Al, ¶ [0018]); a first metal oxide layer (18B, ¶ [0018]) on the first metal layer (18A), the first metal oxide layer (18B) including a metal oxide material (ITO, ¶ [0018]); and a second metal layer (18C, ¶ [0018]) on the first metal oxide layer (18B), the second metal layer (18C) including the metal material (Al, ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D) further include a second metal oxide layer (18D, ¶ [0018]) including the metal oxide material (ITO, ¶ [0018]), the second metal oxide layer (18D) on the second metal layer (18C).
Regarding claim 12, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 2, wherein the metal material includes at least one of aluminum (Al, ¶ [0018]), silver (Ag), molybdenum (Mo), gold (Au), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca) or barium (Ba).
Kazuto is silent regarding that the metal oxide material includes at least one of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), molybdenum oxide (MoO), magnesium oxide (MgO), calcium oxide (CaO) and barium oxide (BaO).
However, Kazuto discloses that the metal oxide material has the same light-transmitting properties as the transparent anode.
Therefore, 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 metal oxide material with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or magnesium oxide (MgO) with a suitable thickness to have similar transmitting properties, since they are alternate material selection choices.
Regarding claim 13, Kazuto in view of Peng discloses the electroluminescence display according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive layers (18A-18D) include: a first conductive layer (18A) in contact with the emission layer (16); a second conductive layer (18B) in contact with the first conductive layer (18A); and a third conductive layer (18C) in contact with the second conductive layer (18B).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2019/0207168 A1, hereinafter, “Lee”), prior art of record, in view of Kazuto (JP2003017274A, hereinafter, “Kazuto”), prior art of record, and Fujioka et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2010/0244664 A1, hereinafter, “Fujioka”).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses an electroluminescence display device (see Lee, FIG. 2) comprising:
a substrate (SUB, FIG. 2) having a display area (where EA is. FIG. 2) and a non-display area surrounding the display area (FIG. 2);
a transistor (DT, FIG. 2) on the substrate (SUB);
a passivation layer (PAS, FIG. 2) on the transistor (DT) covering the display area and the non-display area (FIG. 2);
a planarization layer (OC, FIG. 2) on the passivation layer (PAS), the planarization layer (OC) having a side surface (FIG. 2) to expose a top surface of the passivation layer (PAS) at the non-display area (FIG. 2);
a light emitting element (OLE. FIG. 2) on the planarization layer (OC) and electrically connected to the transistor (DT), the light emitting element (OLE) including an anode electrode (ANO, FIG. 2), an emission layer (OL, FIG. 2) on the anode electrode (ANO), and a cathode electrode (CAT, FIG. 2) on the emission layer (OL),
wherein the cathode electrode (CAT) covers the emission layer (OL) in the display area and extends to the non-display area such that at least a portion of the cathode electrode (CAT) covers the side surface of the planarization layer (OA) at the non-display area (FIG. 2).
Lee is silent regarding that the cathode electrode is a multi-layer electrode; and at least a portion of the cathode electrode is in contact with the exposed top surface of the passivation layer.
Kazuto, however, discloses a display (see Kazuto, FIG. 1), comprising a multilayer cathode electrode (18, FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form Lee’s cathode electrode with a multilayer, as taught by Kazuto, in order to improve the device efficiency (Kazuto, ¶¶ [0005] and [0006]).
Lee in view of Kazuto is silent regarding that at least a portion of the cathode electrode is in contact with the exposed top surface of the passivation layer.
Fujioka, however, discloses a display (see Fujioka, FIG. 14), comprising a cathode electrode (20, FIG. 14) in contact with an exposed top surface of a passivation layer (16, FIG. 14).
Therefore, 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 emission layer of Lee in view of Kazuto not extending to non-display area, so that at least a portion of the cathode electrode is in contact with the exposed top surface of the passivation layer, as taught by Fujioka, since it is an alternative design.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Kazuto and Fujioka discloses the electroluminescence display device of claim 19, wherein the multi-layer cathode electrode (Kazuto’s 18) comprises: a first conductive layer (18A; Kazuto, FIG. 1) in contact with the emission layer (Kazuto’s 16. FIG. 1); a second conductive layer (18B; Kazuto, FIG. 1) in contact with the first conductive layer (18A); and a third conductive layer (18C; Kazuto, FIG. 1) in contact with the second conductive layer (18B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 14-16, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of claim 6, in particular, the plurality of conductive layers include: a first metal layer having a metal material; a first metal oxide layer on the first metal layer, the first metal oxide layer including a metal oxide material; and a resin layer on the first metal oxide layer, the resin layer including a conductive resin material. Claims 7-8 depend upon claim 6.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of claim 9, in particular, the plurality of conductive layers include: a first metal oxide layer including a metal oxide material; a first metal layer on the first metal oxide layer, the first metal layer including a metal material; and a resin layer on the first metal layer, the resin layer including the conductive resin material. Claims 10-11 depend upon claim 9.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of claim 14, in particular each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer includes at least one of a metal layer or a metal oxide layer, and wherein the metal layer is thicker than the metal oxide layer. Claims 15-16 depend upon claim 14.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of claim 21, in particular, each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer includes one of a metal layer or a metal oxide layer, and the second conductive layer includes a conductive resin layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 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.
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 XIA L. CROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-3273. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5:30 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/XIA L CROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights