DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
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 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 reciting “a resistance value between the first layer and the connection electrode is about 103Ω or less” renders the claim indefinite. The first layer and connection layer are in direct contact as disclosed by Applicant. It is unclear what constitute a “resistance value between the first layer and the connection electrode”. Since the two layers are in direct contact, there should be no additional “resistance value” present between the first layer and the connection electrode.
Claim 15 reciting “the connection electrode does not physically contact with the second layer, without being physically contacted with the first layer through a contact portion formed in the hole” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is intended scope of the limitation. Does the connection electrode physically contact the second layer when it is physical contacted with the first layer through a contact portion formed in hole?
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa US 2023/0197765 A1.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) a display device comprising:
electrodes SE+CL1 on a base layer 20;
a first insulating layer 24,25 on the electrodes SE+CL1;
a light emitting element 10 on the first insulating layer; and
a connection electrode CL2,PE,LA1 electrically connecting the light emitting element 10 and at least a portion of the electrodes SE+CL1, wherein
each of the electrodes SE+CL1 includes a first layer SE and a second layer CL1 on the first layer, and
the first layer SE is electrically connected to the connection electrode CL2,PE,LA1 through a contact portion (portion of CL2 in contact hole) formed in a region h1,h2 penetrating the first insulating layer 25,26 and the second layer CL1 (see FIG. 5(b)).
In re claim 2, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein
the first layer SE is more adjacent to the base layer 20 than the second layer CL1 (layer above 24),
the second layer CL2,PE,LA1 is more adjacent to the light emitting element 10 than the first layer SE, and
the first layer SE and the second layer CL1 contacts (thermal or electrical contact) with each other.
In re claim 3, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) wherein
the second layer (portion of CL1 above 24) exposes a region of the first layer (including both SE and portion of CL1 in contact hole), and
the connection electrode CL2 physically contacts with the first layer (including both SE and portion of CL1 in contact hole) in the region h1,h2.
In re claim 4, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) wherein the connection electrode CL2 does not physically contact the second layer (portion of CL1 above 24) in a region adjacent to the region h1,h2.
In re claim 5, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) further comprising:
a second insulating layer 25 on the first insulating layer 24,
wherein the second insulating layer 25 covers a side surface of the first insulating layer 24 and the second layer (portion of CL1 above 24) in a region (region along sidewall wall of h1) adjacent to the region of the first layer exposed by the second layer.
In re claim 6, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein a first thickness of the first layer (e.g. combined thickness of CL1 in hole h1 and SE) is greater than a second thickness of the second layer (e.g. thickness of only upper layer of the two-layer stack CL1 above layer 24).
In re claim 7, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the first thickness (e.g. combined thickness of CL1 in hole h1 and SE) is at least twice the second thickness (e.g. thickness of only upper layer of the two-layer stack CL1 above layer 24).
In re claim 9, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the first layer (including SE and CL1 in hole h1) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of molybdenum (Mo), molybdenum-niobium (MoNb), and molybdenum-tungsten (MoW) (lower layer of CL1 in hole h1 formed of Mo, ¶ 69).
In re claim 10, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the second layer (CL1 above 24) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of aluminum (Al), aluminum- titanium (AITi), and aluminum-neodymium (AINd) (upper layer of the two-layer stack CL1 above 24 formed of Al, ¶ 69).
In re claim 11, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 10) wherein the connection electrode (including layer 40 formed on CL2, PE, LA1, ¶ 109) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), and indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO).
In re claim 12, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 10) wherein
a corrosion potential of a material for forming the first layer (e.g. Mo of CL1 in hole h1, ¶ 69) and a corrosion potential of a material for forming the connection electrode (e.g. ITO layer 40 on CL1,PE,LA1, ¶ 109) are different by a potential difference, and
the potential difference is about 1.0V or less (potential difference between Mo and ITO is less than 1.0V as described by Applicant, see ¶ 186).
Furthermore, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.”
In re claim 13, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 10) wherein the potential difference (between Mo of CL1 (¶ 69) in hole h1 and ITO 40 (¶ 109)) is in a range of about 0.2V to about 0.6V (potential difference between Mo and ITO is in a range of 0.2 V to about 0.6V as described by Applicant, see ¶ 186-187). Furthermore, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.”
In re claim 14, as best understood, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5 & 10) . The display device of claim 1, wherein “a resistance value between the first layer and the connection electrode” is about 103Ω or less. Ogawa teaches the material of the first layer include Mo (¶ 69) and the material of the connection electrode include ITO (¶ 109), which is the same as the material disclosed by Applicant (¶ 186-187) and therefore would exhibit the same “resistance value between” the two materials, as best understood, that is about 103Ω or less as disclosed by Applicant (¶ 187). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). >In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court held that the claimed promoter sequence obtained by sequencing a prior art plasmid that was not previously sequenced was anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. The court stated that “just as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel.”
In re claim 15, as best understood, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4-5) a display device comprising:
electrodes SE+CL1 on a base layer 20 and including a first layer SE and a second layer CL1;
a first insulating layer 24 on the electrodes;
a light emitting element 10 on the first insulating layer;
a second insulating layer 25 on the first insulating layer; and
a connection electrode CL2,PE,LA1 electrically connecting the electrodes and the light emitting element, wherein
the second layer CL1 (above 24) and the first insulating layer 24 form a hole h1 exposing the first layer (including SE and portion of CL1 in hole h1),
the second insulating layer 25 covers a side surface of the first insulating layer 24 and the second layer (CL1 above 24) adjacent to the hole h1 (see FIG. 5(c)), and
“the connection electrode CL2,PE,LA1 does not physically contact with the second layer (CL1 above 24), without being physically contacted with the first layer (including SE and portion of CL1 in hole h1) through a contact portion formed in the hole h1” (as best understood, the connection electrode CL2 is physically separated and spaced apart from the second layer CL1 above 24).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa as applied to claim 6 above.
In re claim 8, Ogawa discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the first thickness of the first layer (corresponding to the combined thickness of CL1 in hole h1 and SE) is greater than the second thickness of the second layer (e.g. corresponding to only the upper layer of the two-layer stack CL1 above layer 24).
Although Ogawa does not explicitly disclose the first thickness is in a range of about 1000 Å to about 4000 Å, and the second thickness is in a range of about 100 Å to about 500 Å, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896