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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the arguments filed on 04/28/2026, pertaining to independent claims 1 and 10, a new rejection has been formulated upon a new reference where Park et al (US 20190156733), Lee et al (US 20190198565) and Kim et al (US 20200211473) are not used in rejecting independent claims 1 and 10. Park et al is used as a secondary reference in rejecting dependent claims which was not mentioned in the applicant arguments.
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(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (US 20210249392).
[claim 1] A display device comprising: a bank layer disposed on a substrate and having a continuous opening defining a first emission area (figure 19, paragraph 0013, where the bank layer labeled BANK surrounds the first emission area);
a first alignment electrode, a second alignment electrode, a third alignment electrode, a fourth alignment electrode, a fifth alignment electrode, and a sixth alignment electrode, each disposed on the substrate and extending from outside the first emission area, under the bank layer and into the continuous opening in the bank layer, and across the first emission area, each spaced apart from each other and sequentially arranged in a direction (figure 19, paragraphs 0325-0329 where elements ELT1, ELT5, ELT2_3, ELT3_2, ELT6 and ELT4_1 comprise the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth electrode all extending from beyond the bank layer [BANK] and across the first emission area [area surrounded by the BANK] and are spaced apart from each other and sequentially arranged in the direction DR1);
a first light emitting element disposed between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting first light (figure 19, paragraph 0336-337, where element LD1 is the first light emitting element disposed between the first and second alignment electrodes [ELT1 and ELT5 respectively] in the first emission area and emitting a first light);
a second light emitting element disposed between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting second light (figure 19, paragraph 0336-337, where element LD2 is the second light emitting element disposed between the third and fourth alignment electrodes [ELT2_3 and ELT3_2 respectively] in the first emission area and emitting a second light);
and a third light emitting element disposed between the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting third light (figure 19, paragraph 0336-337, where element LD3 is the third light emitting element disposed between the fifth and sixth alignment electrodes [ELT6 and ELT4_1 respectively] in the first emission area and emitting a third light),
However, Woo et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] wherein wavelengths of the first light, the second light, and the third light are different from each other.
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Woo et al to optimize the light emitting elements to have different wavelengths to allow for the most efficient and maximal display of the display elements. Woo et al discloses that the light emitting elements may be any wavelength between 400 nm and 900 nm and thus can be changed according to the needs of the display device to optimize the device.
Another embodiment of Woo et al teaches
[claim 10] A display device comprising: a bank layer disposed on a substrate and having a continuous opening defining a first emission area (figure 16, paragraph 0013, where the bank layer labeled BANK surrounds the first emission area);
a first alignment electrode, a second alignment electrode, a third alignment electrode, and a fourth alignment electrode, each disposed on the substrate and extending from outside the first emission area, under the bank layer and into the continuous opening in the bank layer, and across the first emission area, each spaced apart from each other and sequentially arranged in a direction (figure 16, paragraphs 0279-0283, where element ELT1, ELT2, ELT3 and ELT4_1 are the first, second third and fourth alignment electrodes respectively, and each electrode extends from outside the bank layer [labeled BANK] and into the continuous opening [element EMA surrounded by element BANK] and across the first emission area, spaced sequentially apart from each other in the DR1 direction);
a first light emitting element disposed between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting first light (figure 16, paragraphs 0284-0285, where element LD1 is the first light emitting element disposed between the first and second alignment electrodes [ELT1 and ELT2] in the first emission area [EMA]);
a second light emitting element disposed between the second alignment electrode and the third alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting second light (figure 16, paragraphs 0284-0285, where element LD2 is the second light emitting element disposed between the second and third alignment electrodes [ELT2 and ELT3] in the first emission area [EMA]);
and a third light emitting element disposed between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode in the first emission area and emitting third light ((figure 16, paragraphs 0284-0285, where element LD3 is the third light emitting element disposed between the third and fourth alignment electrodes [ELT3 and ELT4_1] in the first emission area [EMA]);
However, Woo et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 10] wherein wavelengths of the first light, the second light, and the third light are different from each other.
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Woo et al to optimize the light emitting elements to have different wavelengths to allow for the most efficient and maximal display of the display elements. Woo et al discloses that the light emitting elements may be any wavelength between 400 nm and 900 nm and thus can be changed according to the needs of the display device to optimize the device.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (US 20210249392) in view of Lee et al (US 20190198565 A1).
However, Woo et al does not specifically disclose
[claims 2 & 11] wherein a length of the first light emitting element, a length of the second light emitting element, and a length of the third light emitting element in the direction are different from each other.
[claims 3 & 12] wherein the first light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 610 nm to about 650 nm, the second light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 510 nm to about 550 nm, and the third light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 440 nm to about 480 nm.
[claims 4 & 13] wherein the length of the first light emitting element is greater than the length of the second light emitting element and the length of the second light emitting element is greater than the length of the third light emitting element.
However, Lee et al does teach
[claims 2 & 11] wherein a length of the first light emitting element, a length of the second light emitting element, and a length of the third light emitting element in the direction are different from each other (figure 32, paragraph 0118, where elements 20 [first light emitting element], 30 [second light emitting element], 40 [third light emitting element] are all different lengths in the diagonal direction, horizontal direction and vertical direction. These light emitting elements would be put onto the light emitting elements of the base reference, park et al).
[claims 3 & 12] wherein the first light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 610 nm to about 650 nm, the second light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 510 nm to about 550 nm, and the third light has a peak wavelength in a range of about 440 nm to about 480 nm (paragraph 0117, where element 20, the red light, by nature of being red light has peak wavelength between 610 nm and 650 nm. Element 30, the green light, by nature of being green light has wavelength between 510 nm and 550 nm. Element 40, the blue light, by nature of being blue light has wavelength between 440 nm and 480 nm).
[claims 4 & 13] wherein the length of the first light emitting element is greater than the length of the second light emitting element and the length of the second light emitting element is greater than the length of the third light emitting element (figure 32, the first light emitting element, element 20 has a greater length [in the x-direction] than the second light emitting element, element 30. Element 30 also has a greater length [in the x-direction] than the third light emitting element, element 40. These elements would be put in place of the light emitting elements on the base reference Park et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Woo et al to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al in order to provide more than one color, but to provide a mixture of the base colors for all displays, red, green and blue, in order to be able to create any specific color from the plurality of elements, thus making the device more versatile.
Claim(s) 5-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (US 20210249392), Lee et al (US 20190198565 A1) and in further view of Park et al (US 20190156733).
Woo et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claims 5] The display device of claims 4 and 17, further comprising: an anchor portion disposed on the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element and exposing the first end and the second end of each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element, wherein the anchor portion comprises an organic insulating material.
[claim 7] The display device of claim 6, wherein the length of the first light emitting element is greater than the distance between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode, the length of the second light emitting element is greater than the distance between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode, and the length of the third light emitting element is greater than the distance between the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode.
However, Park et al does teach
[claims 5] The display device of claims 4 and 17, further comprising: an anchor portion disposed on the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element and exposing the first end and the second end of each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element, wherein the anchor portion comprises an organic insulating material (figure 4, paragraph 0088, where element 232 is the anchor layer and is under each light emitting element and exposes the side walls of each light emitting element, and is made of an insulating material).
[claim 7] The display device of claim 6, wherein the length of the first light emitting element is greater than the distance between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode, the length of the second light emitting element is greater than the distance between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode, and the length of the third light emitting element is greater than the distance between the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode (figure 3, where element MNED11 has a width [in direction dr2] greater than the distance between the first and second alignment electrodes [element 2211 and 2221], where the second light emitting element [element MNED13] has a width greater than the distance between the third and fourth alignment electrodes [elements 2212 and 2222], where the third light emitting element [element MNED14] has a width greater than the distance between the fifth and sixth alignment electrodes [element 2213 and 2223 respectively]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Woo et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Park et al to have different sizes and materials of the electrodes to maximize efficiency of the device in its performance.
Regarding claims 6 and 14,
Per MPEP 2144, Part III. IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In the present disclosure, the only difference between the Applicant’s disclosure and the prior art is the relative distance. As the claims state below:
[claim 6] wherein a distance between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode is greater than a distance between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode in the direction, and the distance between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode is greater than a distance between the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode in the direction.
[claim 14] wherein a distance between the first alignment electrode and the second alignment electrode is greater than a distance between the second alignment electrode and the third alignment electrode in the direction, and the distance between the second alignment electrode and the third alignment electrode is greater than a distance between the third alignment electrode and the fourth alignment electrode in the direction.
The relative distance between the alignment electrodes do not present patentably distinct material as the prior art has all of the features of the present disclosure except the specific relative distances between the electrodes. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Park et al as modified to incorporate the relative distances in order to adequately use the light emitting elements as described in Lee et al, which have different sizes for different wavelengths of light, thus maximizing spatial density by not using extra unnecessary room when not needed by spacing the electrodes adequately.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al (US 20210249392) and in further view of Park et al (US 20190156733).
Woo et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 8] The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a via insulating layer disposed between the substrate and each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode, and the sixth alignment electrode, wherein the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode has a flat profile in the first emission area.
[claim 9] The display device of claim 8, wherein a bottom surface of the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode, and the sixth alignment electrode completely contacts a top surface of the via insulating layer in the first emission area.
[claim 15] The display device of claim 10, wherein each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element have a first end and a second end having different polarities,
the second end of the first light emitting element faces the first end of the second light emitting element, and the second end of the second light emitting element faces the first end of the third light emitting element.
[claim 16] The display device of claim 15, further comprising: a first connection electrode disposed on the first alignment electrode, a second connection electrode disposed on the second alignment electrode, a third connection electrode disposed on the third alignment electrode, and a fourth connection electrode disposed on the fourth alignment electrode,
wherein the first connection electrode electrically contacts the first end of the first light emitting element, the second connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the first light emitting element and the first end of the second light emitting element, the third connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the second light emitting element and the first end of the third light emitting element, and the fourth connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the third light emitting element.
[claim 17] The display device of claim 16, wherein each of the first connection electrode, the second connection electrode, the third connection electrode, and the fourth connection electrode receives a first voltage and a second voltage having different potential values.
[claims 18] The display device of claims 4 and 17, further comprising: an anchor portion disposed on the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element and exposing the first end and the second end of each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element, wherein the anchor portion comprises an organic insulating material.
[claim 19] The display device of claim 10, further comprising: a via insulating layer disposed between the substrate and each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode, wherein the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode has a flat profile in the first emission area.
[claim 20] The display device of claim 19, wherein a bottom surface of the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode completely contacts a top surface of the via insulating layer in the first emission area.
However, Park et al does teach
[claim 8] The display device of claim 1, further comprising: a via insulating layer disposed between the substrate and each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode, and the sixth alignment electrode, wherein the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode and the sixth alignment electrode has a flat profile in the first emission area (figure 4, paragraph 0072, where element 210 is also an insulating layer between substrate and all alignment electrodes).
[claim 9] The display device of claim 8, wherein a bottom surface of the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, the fourth alignment electrode, the fifth alignment electrode, and the sixth alignment electrode completely contacts a top surface of the via insulating layer in the first emission area (figure 3 and 4, elements 2211, 2221, 2212, 2222, 2213, and 2223 touch the top of element 210 which is the insulating layer between the electrodes and the substrate).
[claim 15] The display device of claim 10, wherein each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element have a first end and a second end having different polarities (figure 3, paragraph 0005, 0060, 0082, where each light emitting element [MNED11, MNED12, MNED13] have a first and second end [left and right side of the device in the DR2 direction], and each end is aligned with polarity of the conductive line [paragraph 0082] thus the first end of MNED11 is opposite of the right end of MNED11, but the right end of MNED11 aligns with the left end of MNED12, et..),
the second end of the first light emitting element faces the first end of the second light emitting element, and the second end of the second light emitting element faces the first end of the third light emitting element (figure 3, where the second end of the first light emitting element is the right hand side of element MNED11 and faces a first end of the second light emitting element [left hand side of element MNED12], and a second side of the second light emitting element [right hand side of MNED12] faces a first face of the third light emitting element [left hand side of MNED13]).
[claim 16] The display device of claim 15, further comprising: a first connection electrode disposed on the first alignment electrode, a second connection electrode disposed on the second alignment electrode, a third connection electrode disposed on the third alignment electrode, and a fourth connection electrode disposed on the fourth alignment electrode (figures 3 and 5, paragraph 0091, where element 241 is the first connection electrode disposed on element 2211 of figure 3, element 242 is the second connection electrode disposed on element 22212 of figure 3, element 241 is also the third connection electrode but disposed on element 2212, and element 242 disposed on element 2222 of figure 3 is connection electrode four),
wherein the first connection electrode electrically contacts the first end of the first light emitting element, the second connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the first light emitting element and the first end of the second light emitting element, the third connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the second light emitting element and the first end of the third light emitting element, and the fourth connection electrode electrically contacts the second end of the third light emitting element (figures 3 and 4 where element 241 on element 2211 connects to the left hand side of element MNED11 [first side of first light emitting element], element 242 on element 2221 connects to both the right hand side of MNED11 [second side of first light emitting element] and the left hand side of element MNED12 [first side of second light emitting element], element 241 on element 2212 is the third connection electrode that connects to both the right hand side of element MNED12 [second face of second light emitting element] and left hand side of element MNED13 [first face of third light emitting element] and element 242 on element 2222 is the fourth connection electrode and connects to the right hand side of element MNED13 [second face of third light emitting element]).
[claim 17] The display device of claim 16, wherein each of the first connection electrode, the second connection electrode, the third connection electrode, and the fourth connection electrode receives a first voltage and a second voltage having different potential values (figure 3, paragraph 0075, where elements 2221 and 2222 have one voltage and element 2211 and 2212 have a second voltage).
[claims 18] The display device of claims 4 and 17, further comprising: an anchor portion disposed on the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element and exposing the first end and the second end of each of the first light emitting element, the second light emitting element, and the third light emitting element, wherein the anchor portion comprises an organic insulating material (figure 4, paragraph 0088, where element 232 is the anchor layer and is under each light emitting element and exposes the side walls of each light emitting element, and is made of an insulating material).
[claim 19] The display device of claim 10, further comprising: a via insulating layer disposed between the substrate and each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode, wherein the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode has a flat profile in the first emission area (figure 4, paragraph 0072, where element 210 is also an insulating layer between substrate and all alignment electrodes).
[claim 20] The display device of claim 19, wherein a bottom surface of the each of the first alignment electrode, the second alignment electrode, the third alignment electrode, and the fourth alignment electrode completely contacts a top surface of the via insulating layer in the first emission area (figure 3 and 4, elements 2211, 2221, 2212, 2222 touch the top of element 210 which is the insulating layer between the electrodes and the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Woo et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Park et al to have different sizes and materials of the electrodes to maximize efficiency of the device in its performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM 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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights