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 August 6, 2025 have been entered and considered.
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 1-6, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Tsai et al. (US 8759865 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches:
A display device [100, paragraph [0012], Fig. 1-4] comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements [148, paragraph [0017-0018], Fig. 1-4];
a contact portion [134 “common wiring”, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] provided around a region [104, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] in which the plurality of light-emitting elements [148, Fig. 1] are formed;
an insulating layer [164, paragraph [0029-0030], [0064], Fig. 1-4] having a step [164b, paragraph [0057], [0064], Fig. 1-4] on the contact portion [134, Fig. 1-4]; and
a protective layer [126 “sealing layer”, paragraph [0067-0069], Fig. 1-4] covering the light-emitting elements [148], the contact portion [134], and the insulating layer [164], wherein
each of the light-emitting elements [148] includes:
a first electrode [172, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4];
a second electrode [176, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] having a peripheral portion connected to the contact portion [134]; and
a light-emitting layer [174, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] disposed between the first electrode [172] and the second electrode [176], wherein
the step [164b, Fig. 3] rises in a direction from an inner side of the display device [100, Fig. 3] toward an outer circumference side, and
a peripheral edge of the second electrode [176, Fig. 3] is provided closer to the region [104] than the step [164b] and
Sasaki does not teach:
a height of a side surface of the second electrode is higher than a height of the step.
Tsai et al. teaches:
a height of a side surface of the second electrode [414, Col. 12, Lines 1-6, Fig. 32] is higher than a height of the step [in 442, Col. 11, Lines 53-65, Fig. 32].
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 Tsai et al. into the teachings of Sasaki to include a height of a side surface of the second electrode is higher than a height of the step. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki in the above manner for the purpose of decreasing likeliness of a crack forming, decreasing effects if a crack is formed, and improving reliability. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the insulating layer [164] has an opening [132a, paragraph [0048-0049], Fig. 1-4] that exposes the contact portion [134, paragraph [0020], Fig. 3-4], and
the step [164b] is formed by an inner wall of the opening [132a, paragraph [0057, 0064], Fig. 3-4].
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the peripheral edge of the second electrode [176, Fig. 3] is provided in a vicinity of the step [164b, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki does not teach:
a distance between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode is 10 µm or less.
Tsai et al. teaches:
a distance [W2, Col. 9, Lines 4-8, Fig. 9-10] between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode [410, Col. 9, Lines 4-17, Fig. 9-10] is 10 µm or less.
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 Tsai et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include a distance between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode is 10 µm or less. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of avoiding short circuits and increasing density of device. One of ordinary skill in the art would find distances between features to be a design matter that can be selected as appropriate.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki does not teach:
a distance between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode exceeds 10 µm.
Tsai et al. teaches:
a distance [W2, Col. 9, Lines 4-8, Fig. 9-10] between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode [410, Col. 9, Lines 4-17, Fig. 9-10] exceeds 10 µm.
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 Tsai et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include a distance between the step and the peripheral edge of the second electrode exceeds 10 µm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of avoiding short circuits. One of ordinary skill in the art would find distances between features to be a design matter that can be selected as appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki does not teach:
a distance between a peripheral edge of the protective layer and the peripheral edge of the second electrode is 10 µm or less.
Tsai et al. teaches:
a distance between a peripheral edge of the protective layer [560, Col. 17, Lines 1-2, Fig. 57] and the peripheral edge of the second electrode [531, Col. 17, Lines 1-2, Fig. 57] is 10 µm or less.
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 Tsai et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include a distance between a peripheral edge of the protective layer and the peripheral edge of the second electrode is 10 µm or less. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of increasing density, avoiding short circuits and providing better connections between features. One of ordinary skill in the art would find distances between features to be a design matter that can be selected as appropriate.
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the contact portion [134, Fig. 1-2] is provided so as to face a first portion of an outer circumference of the region.
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the insulating layer [164] has another step [second 164b groove corresponding to 132b, Fig. 4] provided so as to face a second portion of the outer circumference of the region [104], and
the other step [second 164b groove corresponding to 132b, Fig. 4] rises from the inner side of the display device [100] toward the outer circumference side.
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 11.
Sasaki further teaches:
the insulating layer [164] has a recess [132b, paragraph [0057], Fig. 1-4] provided so as to face another portion of the outer circumference of the region [104], and
the recess [132b] forms a step [second 164b groove corresponding to 132b, Fig. 3-4] that rises from the inner side of the display device [100] toward the outer circumference side.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the protective layer [126, paragraph [0022], Fig. 3] is made of an inorganic material.
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki teaches:
A light-emitting device [100, paragraph [0012], Fig. 1-4] comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements [148, paragraph [0017-0018], Fig. 1-4];
a contact portion [134, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] provided around a region [104, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] in which the plurality of light- emitting elements [148, Fig. 1] are formed;
an insulating layer [164, paragraph [0029-0030], [0064], Fig. 1-4] having a step [164b, paragraph [0057], [0064], Fig. 1-4] on the contact portion [134, Fig. 1-4]; and
a protective layer [126, paragraph [0067-0069], Fig. 1-4] covering the light-emitting elements [148], the contact portion [134], and the insulating layer [164], wherein
each of the light-emitting elements [148, Fig. 1-4] includes:
a first electrode [172, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4];
a second electrode [176, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] having a peripheral portion connected to the contact portion [134]; and
a light-emitting layer [174, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] disposed between the first electrode [172] and the second electrode [176], wherein
the step [164b, Fig. 3] rises in a direction from an inner side of the light-emitting device [100, Fig. 3] toward an outer circumference side, and
a peripheral edge of the second electrode [176, Fig. 3] is provided closer to the region [104] than the step [164b] and
Sasaki does not teach:
a height of a side surface of the second electrode is higher than a height of the step.
Tsai et al. teaches:
a height of a side surface of the second electrode [414, Col. 12, Lines 1-6, Fig. 32] is higher than a height of the step [in 442, Col. 11, Lines 53-65, Fig. 32].
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 Tsai et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include a height of a side surface of the second electrode is higher than a height of the step. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of decreasing likeliness of a crack forming, decreasing effects if a crack is formed, and improving reliability. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Takehashi et al. (US 20060261360 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki teaches:
A display device [100, paragraph [0012], Fig. 1-4] comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements [148, paragraph [0017-0018], Fig. 1-4;
a contact portion [134 “common wiring”, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] provided around a region [104, paragraph [0019-0020], Fig. 1-4] in which the plurality of light-emitting elements [148, Fig. 1] are formed;
an insulating layer [164, paragraph [0029-0030], [0064], Fig. 1-4] having a step [164b, paragraph [0057], [0064], Fig. 1-4] on the contact portion [134, Fig. 1-4]; and
a protective layer [126 “sealing layer”, paragraph [0067-0069], Fig. 1-4] covering the light-emitting elements [148, Fig. 1-4], the contact portion [134, Fig. 1-4], and the insulating layer [164, Fig. 1-4], wherein
each of the light-emitting elements [148] includes:
a first electrode [172, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4];
a second electrode [176, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] having a peripheral portion connected to the contact portion [134]; and
a light-emitting layer [174, paragraph [0018], Fig. 1-4] disposed between the first electrode [172] and the second electrode [174], and wherein
the step rises [164b, Fig. 3] in a direction from an inner side of the display device [100, Fig. 3] toward an outer circumference side,
a peripheral edge of the second electrode [176, Fig. 3] is provided closer to the region [104] than the step [164b], and
Sasaki does not teach:
a height of the step is approximately equal to a height of a side surface of the second electrode.
Takehashi et al. teaches:
a height of the step [1b-A, paragraph [0032], [0044-0045], Fig. 11] is approximately equal to a height of a side surface of the second electrode [6, paragraph [0032], Fig. 11].
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 Takehashi et al. into the teachings of Sasaki to include a height of the step is approximately equal to a height of a side surface of the second electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki in the above manner for the purpose of improving symmetry and uniformity within the device, allowing for better connections and improved performance. Smaller layers form and process more quickly, while thicker layers may improve stress relief and improve resistance. See also, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts, and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Tsai et al. (US 8759865 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii (WO 2018216432 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki further teaches:
the contact portion [134 correlated with 118, paragraph [0020], Fig. 1-2] has a loop shape surrounding the region [104].
Sasaki and Tsai et al. do not teach:
the contact portion has a closed loop shape surrounding the region.
Fujii teaches:
the contact portion [X “contact region”, paragraph [00048], Fig. 3, 5A] has a closed loop shape surrounding the region [101A “Effective Pixel region”, paragraph [00048], Fig. 5A].
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 Fujii into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include the contact portion has a closed loop shape surrounding the region. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing electrical connection within the device, and improving performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Tsai et al. (US 8759865 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 7411216 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki and Tsai et al. do not teach:
corners of the contact portions are curved.
Kim et al. teaches:
corners of the contact portions [C, Col. 6, Lines 1-4, Fig. 3, 14B] are curved.
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 Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include corners of the contact portions are curved. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of minimizing defects, enhancing device performance, improving yield and reliability, saving space, increasing durability especially in wearable devices, automotive displays, medical equipment, and aerospace applications.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Tsai et al. (US 8759865 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osumi et al. (US 6578989 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki and Tsai et al. teach the display device according to claim 1.
Sasaki and Tsai et al. do not teach:
an electronic apparatus comprising the display device.
Osumi et al. teaches:
an electronic apparatus [Col. 17, Lines 32-67 to Col. 18, Lines 1-46, Fig. 16-25] comprising the display device.
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 Osumi et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Tsai et al. to include an electronic apparatus comprising the display device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Tsai et al. in the above manner for the purpose of utilizing the display device in a real-world apparatus. An apparatus including a display device is a known limitation in the art, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a display device within an apparatus is an obvious feature and therefore unpatentable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), in view of Takehashi et al. (US 20060261360 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Osumi et al. (US 6578989 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki and Takehashi et al. teach the display device according to claim 7.
Sasaki and Takehashi et al. do not teach:
an electronic apparatus comprising the display device.
Osumi et al. teaches:
an electronic apparatus [Col. 17, Lines 32-67 to Col. 18, Lines 1-46, Fig. 16-25] comprising the display device.
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 Osumi et al. into the teachings of Sasaki and Takehashi et al. to include an electronic apparatus comprising the display device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sasaki and Takehashi et al. in the above manner for the purpose of utilizing the display device in a real-world apparatus. An apparatus including a display device is a known limitation in the art, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a display device within an apparatus is an obvious feature and therefore unpatentable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed August 6, 2025, with respect to Claim 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 and 16 with respect to prior art reference Kanaya (US 12261154 B2), has been withdrawn. Applicant argues in remarks filed August 6, 2025 that prior art of record Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), does not teach the amendment to claim 1 and 16. Examiner agrees, however after new considerations of prior art reference Tsai et al. (US 8759865 B2), the amendment to claim 1 and 16 can be overcome. Applicant also argues that prior art reference Kanaya does not teach the claimed limitations of “a height of a side surface of the second electrode is higher than a height of the step.”, and Kanaya does not teach a “step” or a “second electrode”, as stated by Examiner in Office Action dated May 19, 2025. Examiner agrees with Applicant, Examiner will withdraw prior art reference Kanaya and rejections based on such. Applicant also argues that claims 2-3, 11-13 and 15 depend on claim 1 and therefore should be allowable as well. Due to new considerations of previously presented prior art Tsai et al., independent claim 1 and 16 are unpatentable and all claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claims 1 or 16 are also rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed August 6, 2025, with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 7 with respect to prior art reference Kanaya (US 12261154 B2), has been withdrawn. Applicant argues in remarks filed August 6, 2025 that prior art of record Sasaki (JP 2019091642 A), does not teach the amendment to claim 7. Examiner agrees, however after a new search of prior art, reference Takehashi et al. (US 20060261360 A1) can overcome the amendments to claim 7. Applicant also argues that prior art reference Kanaya does not teach the claimed limitations of “a height of the step is approximately equal to a height of a side surface of the second electrode.”, and Kanaya does not teach a “step” or a “second electrode”, as stated by Examiner in Office Action dated May 19, 2025. Examiner agrees with Applicant, Examiner will withdraw prior art reference Kanaya and rejections based on such. Applicant also argues that claims 4-6, 10, 14 and 19 which depend on independent claim 1, should be allowable. Examiner disagrees with Applicant after a new line of search and consideration.
In conclusion, Amendments to independent claims 1, 7 and 16 can be overcome by a new search and consideration of the prior art. All claims directly or indirectly dependent on independent claims 1, 7 and 16 are rejected for at least the reasons mentioned above.
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 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 11/06/2025
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815