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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 12/15/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully
considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
Applicant has corrected the drawing sheets therefore all objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 13 therefore all rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee at al. (US 20070194699 A1 – hereinafter Lee-699) in view of Im et al. (US 20160013438 A1 – hereinafter Im-438), Kim et al. (US 20160190225 A1 – hereinafter Kim-225), and Yamazaki et al. (US 20050012454 A1 – hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee-699 teaches:
(Currently Amended) A display panel (1 – Fig. 2 – [0068] – “display
apparatus 1”), comprising:
a base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 - [0071] – “substrate 110”);
an auxiliary electrode line (125 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “auxiliary electrode line 125”)
disposed on the base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 shows this);
a planarization layer (160 – Fig. 3 – [0079] – “planarizing layer 160”) disposed
on a side of the auxiliary electrode line (125) away from the base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 - [0071] – “substrate 110”);
an auxiliary electrode disposed on a side of the planarization layer (160) away from the auxiliary electrode line and electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode;
a pixel definition layer disposed on the side of the planarization layer (160) away from the auxiliary electrode line, and provided with a first opening opposite to the auxiliary electrode, wherein at least part of a first lateral wall of the auxiliary electrode is exposed by the first opening;
an organic light-emitting layer disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the planarization layer to cover the pixel definition layer, and disconnected at the at least part of the first lateral wall to expose the at least part of the first lateral wall; and
a first electrode disposed on a side of the organic light-emitting layer away from the pixel definition layer to cover the organic light-emitting layer, (230 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “common electrode 230”) is not disconnected in the first opening (211 – Fig. 3 – [0080] – “contact hole 211”) and comprises an electrode part in the first opening (211 – Fig. 3 shows this),
wherein the electrode part comprises a body, and a first branch portion branching off from the body to be electrically connected to the at least part of the first lateral wall.
Lee-699 does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
at least part of a first lateral wall (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LW’) of the auxiliary electrode (225 – Fig. 5 – [0126] – “auxiliary electrode 225”) is exposed by the first opening (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter FO, shows this);
an organic light-emitting layer (230 – Fig. 5 – [0120] - organic compound layer 230) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (215d – Fig. 5 – [0125] – “bank 215d”) away from the planarization layer (215c – Fig. 5 – [0119] – “planarization film 215c”) to cover the pixel definition layer (215d), and disconnected at (Fig. 5 shows this) the at least part of the first lateral wall (LW) to expose the at least part of the first lateral wall (LW); and
a first electrode (228 – Fig 5 – [0120] – “electrode 228” – this corresponds to the first electrode) disposed on a side of the organic light-emitting layer (230) away from the pixel definition layer (215d) to cover the organic light-emitting layer (230).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
587
media_image1.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 auxiliary electrode and the light-emitting structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “to provide a top emission type organic light emitting display device in which a voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while simplifying a process, and a manufacturing method thereof” and [0022] – “to provide an organic light emitting display device in which voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while enhancing reliability of contact between a cathode and an auxiliary electrode.”
Lee-699 and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-225 teaches
an auxiliary electrode (175 – Fig. 2 – [0045] – “auxiliary electrode 175”) disposed on a side of the planarization layer away from the auxiliary electrode line (165 – Fig. 2 – [0045] – “an auxiliary line 165”) and electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line (165 – Fig. 2 shows this);
a pixel definition layer (180 – Fig. 2 – [0045] – “a bank 180”) disposed on the side of the planarization layer away from the auxiliary electrode line (165), and provided with a first opening (Fig. 2 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘OPN’) opposite to the auxiliary electrode (175 – Fig. 2 shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
557
843
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 auxiliary electrode opposite the auxiliary electrode line as taught by Kim-225 into Lee-699 and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim-225 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result to reduce [0015] – “a spatial limitation on any increase in the size of the auxiliary electrode 50 because the auxiliary electrode 50 needs to be provided in the same layer as the first electrode 40. Therefore, there is a limit to the extent to which the resistance of the second electrode 80 may be reduced.”
Lee-699, Im-438, and Kim-225 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Yamazaki teaches
wherein the electrode part (110 – Fig. 10B – [0072] – “counter electrode 110”) comprises a body, and a first branch portion branching off from the body to be electrically connected to the at least part of the first lateral wall (Fig. 10B annotated, see below, shows this, [0083] – “the leader wiring 102 and the auxiliary electrode 103 are connected to the counter electrode 110 in the one opening 108b; however, the shape of the opening is not limited to this embodiment mode. An opening for exposing the leader wiring 102 and an opening for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be separated, or a plurality of openings for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be provided” – 102c and 103 are connected and merged in this figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
283
847
media_image3.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 electrode branch structure as taught by Yamazaki into Lee-699, Im-438, and Kim-225.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamazaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0009] – “an auxiliary electrode can be formed without increasing the number of steps” by filling in the sides of the auxiliary electrode with other material than the first electrode.
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 8, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Currently Amended) The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a
slope angle of the first lateral wall (LW) is greater than or equal to 90 degrees (Fig. 5 annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
587
media_image1.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 slope angle of the auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0022] – “to provide an organic light emitting display device in which voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while enhancing reliability of contact between a cathode and an auxiliary electrode.”
Regarding claim 10, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki, teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
display panel further comprises a second electrode (218 – Fig. 5 – [0120] – “electrode 218”) disposed on the planarization layer (215c), the organic light-emitting layer (230 – Fig. 5) is located between the second electrode (218) and the first electrode (228), and the second electrode (218) and the auxiliary electrode (225) are disposed in a same layer (215d – Fig. 5 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 electrode structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated in claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee et al. (US 20210408441 A1 – hereinafter Lee-441).
Regarding claim 2, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
auxiliary electrode (120 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120”) comprises a first conductive layer (1201 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120 including a first metal layer 1201 and a second metal layer 1202 stacked”) and a second conductive layer (1202 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120 including a first metal layer 1201 and a second metal layer 1202 stacked”) that are stacked, and an orthogonal projection of one of the first conductive layer (1201) and the second conductive layer (1202) on the base substrate (100 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “substrate 100”) is within and has a less area ([0032] – “the second metal layer 1202 having a smaller area than the first metal layer 1201”) than an orthogonal projection of another one of the first conductive layer (1201) and the second conductive layer (1202) on the base substrate (100).
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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Im-438, and Nishiyama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “to provide a display device capable of preventing lowering in a cathode voltage by the provision of an auxiliary connection portion and improving both the transmission efficiency of a transmissive portion and luminance of an emission portion in a structure having both the transmissive portion and the emission portion.”
Regarding claim 3, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
the auxiliary electrode (225).
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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “to provide a top emission type organic light emitting display device in which a voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while simplifying a process, and a manufacturing method thereof”.
Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 3.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 2, wherein the
auxiliary electrode further comprises a third conductive layer (1203 – Fig. 5 [0042] – “auxiliary electrode 120 further includes a third metal layer 1203 formed on the second metal layer 1202”), the second conductive layer (1202) is located between the first conductive layer (1201) and the third conductive layer (1203 – Fig. 5 shows this), and an orthogonal projection of one of the second conductive layer (1202) and the third conductive layer (1203) on the base substrate (100) is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of another one of the second conductive layer (1202) and the third conductive layer (1203) on the base substrate (100 – Fig. 5 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 auxiliary electrode layer size as taught by Lee-441 into -699, Kim-225, Yamazaki and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441, teaches claim 3 from which claim 6 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 3, wherein
the second conductive layer (225b) is located on a side of the first conductive layer away (225a) from the planarization layer (115c), and an orthogonal projection of the second conductive layer (225b) on the base substrate (210 – Fig. 5 – [0108] – “substrate 210”) is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of the third conductive layer (225c) on the base substrate (210).
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441, teaches claim 6 from which claim 7 depends. Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 6, wherein
each of the first conductive layer (1201 - [0104] – “the anode dummy pattern is formed so as to have a triple film structure of ITO/Mo/ITO” – this corresponds to the conductive layers of the auxiliary electrode and the first layer is ITO and the third layer is ITO) and the third conductive layer (1203 - [0104] – “the anode dummy pattern is formed so as to have a triple film structure of ITO/Mo/ITO” – this corresponds to the conductive layers of the auxiliary electrode and the first layer is ITO and the third layer is ITO) comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium doped zinc oxide (IZO), and the second conductive layer (1202 - [0066] – “the auxiliary electrode 120, the source electrode 121, the drain electrode 124, the gate electrode 122, and the first pad electrode 127 has a three-layered structure, as shown in FIG. 2, each layer can be made of a metal having high conductivity, such as aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), or tungsten (W), or an alloy of the metals” – the second conductive layer can be Al or W) comprises aluminum (Al), tungsten oxide (WOx), or an aluminum alloy.
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 auxiliary electrode layer material structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 2.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Liu (US 20210159289 A1 – hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 4, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441, teaches claim 3 from which claim 4 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 3, wherein the
second conductive layer (225b) is located on a side of the first conductive layer (225a) away from the planarization layer (215c), and an orthogonal projection of the first conductive layer on the base substrate (210) is within and has a less area an orthogonal projection of the second conductive layer on the base substrate (210).
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Lee-441.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
an orthogonal projection of the first conductive layer (0022 – Fig. 4 – [0076] – “auxiliary electrode pattern 0022”) on the base substrate is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of the second conductive layer (0042 – Fig. 4 [0092] – “second electrode pattern 0042 is disposed in a non-light-emitting area” – this is the second conductive layer of the auxiliary electrode, Fig. 4 shows this) on the base substrate.
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Liu into Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0073] – “In a top-emitting OLED display substrate, light emitted from an emitting layer is reflected by the anode layer and then emitted from the cathode layer. Owing to that the light needs to be emitted from the cathode layer in the top-emitting OLED display substrate, it is required that the cathode layer is thin to ensure the light transmittance.”
Regarding claim 5, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Liu, teaches claim 4 from which claim 5 depends. Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Liu do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
the second conductive layer (225b – [0127] – “electrode 225b is etched by the etchant of Ag alloy” – interpreted as 225b contains Ag) comprises silver (Ag).
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Im-438 Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Liu.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Liu, and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 4, wherein
each of the first conductive layer (1201) and the third conductive layer comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or indium doped zinc oxide (IZO) (1203 – [0104] – “the anode dummy pattern is formed so as to have a triple film structure of ITO/Mo/ITO” – this corresponds to the conductive layers of the auxiliary electrode and the first layer is ITO and the third layer is ITO), and the second conductive layer (225b – [0127] – “electrode 225b is etched by the etchant of Ag alloy” – interpreted as 225b contains Ag) comprises silver (Ag).
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 auxiliary electrode layer material structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, Liu, and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Kim et al. (US 20140183483 A1 – hereinafter Kim-483).
Regarding claim 9, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Lee-699, Im-438, and Kim-225 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Yamazaki teaches
(Currently Amended) The display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein at
least part of a second lateral wall of the auxiliary electrode opposite to the first lateral wall is exposed by the first opening, and (Fig. 10B annotated, see below, shows this, [0083] – “the leader wiring 102 and the auxiliary electrode 103 are connected to the counter electrode 110 in the one opening 108b; however, the shape of the opening is not limited to this embodiment mode. An opening for exposing the leader wiring 102 and an opening for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be separated, or a plurality of openings for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be provided” – 102c and 103 are connected and merged in this figure) an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary electrode on the base substrate is separate from an orthogonal projection of the pixel definition layer;
PNG
media_image3.png
283
847
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the organic light-emitting layer (109 – Fig. 10A – [0072] – “electroluminescent layer 109”) is disconnected at the at least part of the second lateral wall to expose the at least part of the second lateral wall (Fig. 10A annotated, see below, shows this); and
the electrode part further comprises a second branch portion branching off from the body to be electrically connected to the at least part of the second lateral wall (Fig. 10B annotated, see below, shows this).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
845
media_image4.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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Yamazaki into Lee-699, Im-438, and Kim-225.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamazaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 1.
Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-483 teaches
an orthogonal projection of the auxiliary electrode (E3 – Fig. 6 – [0024] – “auxiliary electrode E3”) on the base substrate (kim (10 – Fig. 6 – [0024] – “substrate 10”) is separate from an orthogonal projection of the pixel definition layer (60 – Fig. 6 – [0037] – “pixel defining layer 60”) on the base substrate (10 – Fig. 6 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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Kim-483 into Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim-483 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0005] – "configured to prevent voltage drop in a region far away from a region to which voltage is applied".
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and You et al. (US 20120146030 A1 – hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 11, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, and Yamazaki, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Lee-699 further teaches
the display panel (1),
the auxiliary electrode line (125).
Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 10, wherein
the display panel further comprises a transistor (DT – Fig. 5 – [0065] – “thin film transistor (TFT) DT”) disposed on the base substrate (210), the second electrode (218) is located on a side of the transistor (DT) away from the base substrate (210), the second electrode (218) is electrically connected to the transistor (DT), and the transistor (DT) comprises an active layer (224 – Fig. 5 – [0113] – “semiconductor layer 224”), a gate electrode (225 – Fig. 5 – [0114] – “gate electrode 221”), a source electrode (222 – Fig. 5 –[0115] – “source/drain electrodes 222 and 223”), and a drain electrode (223 – Fig. 5 –[0115] – “source/drain electrodes 222 and 223”); and the display panel further comprises a bridge electrode, the auxiliary electrode (125 – Fig. 3 – [0089] – “auxiliary electrode 125 “) is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line through the bridge electrode, and the bridge electrode and at least one of the active layer, the gate electrode, the source electrode, or the drain electrode are disposed in a same 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 display panel structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Kim-225, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 3.
Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, You teaches
a bridge electrode (21c – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “contact electrode 21c”), the auxiliary electrode is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line through the bridge electrode (21c – [0040] – “contact electrode 21c may be electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode 11 via a contact hole”), and the bridge electrode (21c) and at least one of the active layer (213 – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “active layer 213”), the gate electrode (21g – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “gate electrode 21g”), the source electrode (21s – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “source electrode 21s”), or the drain electrode (21d – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “drain electrode 21d”) are disposed in a same layer (420 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “pixel-defining layer (PDL) 420” – Fig. 1 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 bridge electrode structure as taught by You into Lee-699, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of You in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of reducing [0008] -
"a complex manufacturing process, an increase in the manufacturing time, and an
increase in the manufacturing 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, You, Lee-441, and Kim et al. (US 20240016016 A1 – hereinafter Kim-6016).
Regarding claim 12, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and You, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Lee-699 further teaches
the display panel (1),
the auxiliary electrode line (125).
Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and You do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-6016 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 11, wherein
the display panel further comprises a light-shielding layer (211 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “light-shielding layer 211”) disposed on the base substrate (200 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “substrate 200”), the light- shielding layer (211) is disposed between the transistor (TFT – Fig. 9 – [0123] – “thin film transistors TFT”) and the base substrate (200) to be opposite to the active layer (214 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “semiconductor layer 214” – this is the active layer), and the auxiliary electrode line and the light-shielding layer (211) are disposed in a same 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 light-shielding structure
as taught by Kim-6016 into Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, and You.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of
Kim-6016 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0118] - "A
light-shielding layer 211 may be provided on the substrate 200 so as to block light from
the lower part of an oxide semiconductor layer''.
Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, You, and Kim-6016 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
the active layer, and the auxiliary electrode line and the light-shielding layer are disposed in a same layer ([0049] – “the ground voltage line VSSL can be formed of, for example, a metal on the same layer as a light blocking layer 110 (see FIG. 2), or can be formed of a metal on the same layer as the gate line or the data lines. Depending on circumstances, the ground voltage line VSSL and the auxiliary electrode 120 can be integrated” – the auxiliary electrode line VSSL is integrated into the auxiliary electrode 120 and is in the same layer as the light blocking layer 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to layer structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Im-438, Kim-225, Yamazaki, You, and Kim-6016.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of
Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of preventing [0005] - "lowering in the voltage at a region of an electrode formed as a single body for a plurality of subpixels distant from a region of the electrode to which a voltage is applied."
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama et al. (US 20160351848 A1 – hereinafter Kodama).
Regarding independent claim 13, Lee-699 teaches:
(Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising a housing and
a display panel (1 – Fig. 2 – [0068] – “display apparatus 1”) assembled in the housing ([0002] – “a display device assembled with the housing”), the display panel (1 – Fig. 2 – [0068] – “display apparatus 1”) comprising:
a base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 - [0071] – “substrate 110”);
an auxiliary electrode line (125 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “auxiliary electrode line 125” disposed on the base substrate (110 – Fig. 3 shows this);
a planarization layer (160 – Fig. 3 – [0079] – “planarizing layer 160”) disposed on a side of the auxiliary electrode line (125) away from the base substrate (110);
an auxiliary electrode disposed on a side of the planarization layer (160) away from the auxiliary electrode line (125 – Fig. 3 shows this) and electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line (125);
a pixel definition layer (210 – Fig. 3 – [0082] – “partition 210 defines a pixel region” – this corresponds to a pixel definition layer) disposed on the side of the planarization layer (160) away from the auxiliary electrode line (125 – Fig. 3 shows this), and provided with a first opening opposite to the auxiliary electrode, wherein at least part of a first lateral wall of the auxiliary electrode is exposed by the first opening;
an organic light-emitting layer disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer away from the planarization layer to cover the pixel definition layer, and disconnected at the at least part of the first lateral wall to expose the at least part of the first lateral wall; and
a first electrode disposed on a side of the organic light-emitting layer away from the pixel definition layer to cover the organic light-emitting layer(230 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “common electrode 230”) is not disconnected in the first opening (211 – Fig. 3 shows this) and comprises an electrode part in the first opening, wherein the electrode part comprises a body, and a first branch portion branching off from the body to be electrically connected to the at least part of the first lateral wall.
Lee-699 does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
an auxiliary electrode (125 – Fig. 3 – [0089] – “auxiliary electrode 125”),
provided with a first opening opposite (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter FO) to the auxiliary electrode (125), wherein at least part of a first lateral wall (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LW’) of the auxiliary electrode (125) is exposed by the first opening (Fig. 5 annotated, see below – hereinafter FO, shows this);
an organic light-emitting layer (230 – Fig. 5 – [0120] - organic compound layer 230) disposed on a side of the pixel definition layer (215d – Fig. 5 – [0125] – “bank 215d”) away from the planarization layer (215c – Fig. 5 – [0119] – “planarization film 215c”) to cover the pixel definition layer (215d), and disconnected (Fig. 5 shows this) at the at least part of the first lateral wall (LW) to expose the at least part of the first lateral wall (LW); and
a first electrode (228 – Fig 5 – [0120] – “electrode 228” – this corresponds to the first electrode) disposed on a side of the organic light-emitting layer (230) away from the pixel definition layer (215d) to cover the organic light-emitting layer (230).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
587
media_image1.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 auxiliary electrode and the light-emitting structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “to provide a top emission type organic light emitting display device in which a voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while simplifying a process, and a manufacturing method thereof” and [0022] – “to provide an organic light emitting display device in which voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while enhancing reliability of contact between a cathode and an auxiliary electrode.”
Lee-699 and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Yamazaki teaches
comprises an electrode part in the first opening, wherein the electrode part (110 – Fig. 10B – [0072] – “counter electrode 110”) comprises a body, and a first branch portion branching off from the body to be electrically connected to the at least part of the first lateral wall (Fig. 10B annotated, see below, shows this, [0083] – “the leader wiring 102 and the auxiliary electrode 103 are connected to the counter electrode 110 in the one opening 108b; however, the shape of the opening is not limited to this embodiment mode. An opening for exposing the leader wiring 102 and an opening for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be separated, or a plurality of openings for exposing the auxiliary electrode may be provided” – 102c and 103 are connected and merged in this figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
283
847
media_image3.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 electrode branch structure as taught by Yamazaki into Lee-699 and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Yamazaki in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0009] – “an auxiliary electrode can be formed without increasing the number of steps” by filling in the sides of the auxiliary electrode with other material than the first electrode.
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.
Lee-699, Im-438, and Yamazaki do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Kodama teaches
a display panel assembled in the housing ([0002] – “a display device assembled with the housing”).
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 housing and display
panel assembly as taught by Kodama into Lee-699, Im-438, and Yamazaki.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kodama in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0023] -
"damage to the organic EL display device and the touch panel can be further
suppressed."
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Lee-441.
Regarding claim 14, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama, teaches claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 13, wherein
the auxiliary electrode (120 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120”) comprises a first conductive layer (1201 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120 including a first metal layer 1201 and a second metal layer 1202 stacked”) and a second conductive layer (1202 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “auxiliary electrode 120 including a first metal layer 1201 and a second metal layer 1202 stacked”) that are stacked, and an orthogonal projection of one of the first conductive layer (1201) and the second conductive layer (1202) on the base substrate (100 – Fig. 5 – [0032] – “substrate 100”) is within and has a less area ([0032] – “the second metal layer 1202 having a smaller area than the first metal layer 1201”) than an orthogonal projection of another one of the first conductive layer (1201) and the second conductive layer (1202) on the base substrate (100).
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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0007] – “to provide a display device capable of preventing lowering in a cathode voltage by the provision of an auxiliary connection portion and improving both the transmission efficiency of a transmissive portion and luminance of an emission portion in a structure having both the transmissive portion and the emission portion.”
Regarding claim 15, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama, and Lee-441, teaches claim 14 from which claim 15 depends. Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
the auxiliary electrode (225).
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 auxiliary electrode structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0021] – “to provide a top emission type organic light emitting display device in which a voltage drop of a cathode is prevented, while simplifying a process, and a manufacturing method thereof”.
Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 15.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 2, wherein the
auxiliary electrode further comprises a third conductive layer (1203 – Fig. 5 [0042] – “auxiliary electrode 120 further includes a third metal layer 1203 formed on the second metal layer 1202”), the second conductive layer (1202) is located between the first conductive layer (1201) and the third conductive layer (1203 – Fig. 5 shows this), and an orthogonal projection of one of the second conductive layer (1202) and the third conductive layer (1203) on the base substrate (100) is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of another one of the second conductive layer (1202) and the third conductive layer (1203) on the base substrate (100 – Fig. 5 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 auxiliary electrode layer size as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Lee-441, teaches claim 15 from which claim 17 depends. Lee-699, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Kodama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 17.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 15, wherein
the second conductive layer (225b) is located on a side of the first conductive layer away (225a) from the planarization layer (115c), and an orthogonal projection of the second conductive layer (225b) on the base substrate (210 – Fig. 5 – [0108] – “substrate 210”) is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of the third conductive layer (225c) on the base substrate (210).
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Yamazaki, Lee-441, and Kodama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Liu.
Regarding claim 16, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 16, wherein
the second conductive layer (225b) is located on a side of the first conductive layer (225a) away from the planarization layer (215c), and an orthogonal projection of the first conductive layer on the base substrate (210) is within and has a less area than an orthogonal projection of the second conductive layer on the base substrate (210).
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
However, in an analogous art, Liu teaches
an orthogonal projection of the first conductive layer (0022 – Fig. 4 – [0076] – “auxiliary electrode pattern 0022”) on the base substrate is within and has a less area than (0042 – Fig. 4 [0092] – “second electrode pattern 0042 is disposed in a non-light-emitting area” – this is the second conductive layer of the auxiliary electrode, Fig. 4 shows this) on the base substrate.
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 auxiliary electrode layer structure as taught by Liu into Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama, and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Liu in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result [0073] – “In a top-emitting OLED display substrate, light emitted from an emitting layer is reflected by the anode layer and then emitted from the cathode layer. Owing to that the light needs to be emitted from the cathode layer in the top-emitting OLED display substrate, it is required that the cathode layer is thin to ensure the light transmittance.”
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You.
Regarding claim 19, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, and Kodama, teaches claim 18 from which claim 19 depends. Lee-699 further teaches
the display panel (1),
the auxiliary electrode line (125).
Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, Im-438 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 10, wherein
the display panel further comprises a transistor (DT – Fig. 5 – [0065] – “thin film transistor (TFT) DT”) disposed on the base substrate (210), the second electrode (218) is located on a side of the transistor (DT) away from the base substrate (210), the second electrode (218) is electrically connected to the transistor (DT), and the transistor (DT) comprises an active layer (224 – Fig. 5 – [0113] – “semiconductor layer 224”), a gate electrode (225 – Fig. 5 – [0114] – “gate electrode 221”), a source electrode (222 – Fig. 5 –[0115] – “source/drain electrodes 222 and 223”), and a drain electrode (223 – Fig. 5 –[0115] – “source/drain electrodes 222 and 223”); and the display panel further comprises a bridge electrode, the auxiliary electrode (125 – Fig. 3 – [0089] – “auxiliary electrode 125 “) is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line through the bridge electrode, and the bridge electrode and at least one of the active layer, the gate electrode, the source electrode, or the drain electrode are disposed in a same 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 display panel structure as taught by Im-438 into Lee-699, Yamazaki, and Kodama.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Im-438 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 15.
Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama and Im-438 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 19.
However, in an analogous art, You teaches
a bridge electrode (21c – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “contact electrode 21c”), the auxiliary electrode is electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode line through the bridge electrode (21c – [0040] – “contact electrode 21c may be electrically connected to the auxiliary electrode 11 via a contact hole”), and the bridge electrode (21c) and at least one of the active layer (213 – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “active layer 213”), the gate electrode (21g – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “gate electrode 21g”), the source electrode (21s – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “source electrode 21s”), or the drain electrode (21d – Fig. 1 – [0040] – “drain electrode 21d”) are disposed in a same layer (420 – Fig. 1 – [0041] – “pixel-defining layer (PDL) 420” – Fig. 1 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 bridge electrode structure as taught by You into Lee-699, Yamazaki, Kodama and Im-438.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of You in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of reducing [0008] -
"a complex manufacturing process, an increase in the manufacturing time, and an
increase in the manufacturing costs."
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-699 in view of Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, You, Kim-6016, and Lee-441.
Regarding claim 20, Lee-699 as modified by Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You, teaches claim 19 from which claim 20 depends. Lee-699 further teaches
the display panel (1),
the auxiliary electrode line (125).
Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Kim-6016 teaches
(Previously Presented) The display panel as claimed in claim 19, wherein
the display panel further comprises a light-shielding layer (211 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “light-shielding layer 211”) disposed on the base substrate (200 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “substrate 200”), the light-shielding layer (211) is disposed between the transistor (TFT – Fig. 9 – [0123] – “thin film transistors TFT”) and the base substrate (200) to be opposite to the active layer (214 – Fig. 9 – [0118] – “semiconductor layer 214” – this is the active layer), and the auxiliary electrode line and the light-shielding layer (211) are disposed in a same 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 light-shielding structure
as taught by Kim-6016 into Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of
Kim-6016 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of [0118] - "A
light-shielding layer 211 may be provided on the substrate 200 so as to block light from
the lower part of an oxide semiconductor layer''.
Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You, and Kim-6016 do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Lee-441 teaches
the active layer, and the auxiliary electrode line and the light-shielding layer are disposed in a same layer ([0049] – “the ground voltage line VSSL can be formed of, for example, a metal on the same layer as a light blocking layer 110 (see FIG. 2), or can be formed of a metal on the same layer as the gate line or the data lines. Depending on circumstances, the ground voltage line VSSL and the auxiliary electrode 120 can be integrated” – the auxiliary electrode line VSSL is integrated into the auxiliary electrode 120 and is in the same layer as the light blocking layer 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to layer structure as taught by Lee-441 into Lee-699, Im-438, Yamazaki, Kodama, and You, and Kim-6016.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of
Lee-441 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of preventing [0005] - "lowering in the voltage at a region of an electrode formed as a single body for a plurality of subpixels distant from a region of the electrode to which a voltage is applied."
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20160013436 A1 is 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 "assembled in the housing".
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