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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 1/13/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, and 7 are amended. Claim 4 is canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2008/0309232; hereinafter ‘Yamamoto’) in view of Sung et al. (US 2007/0080377; hereinafter ‘Sung’) and Komata et al. (JP 2014-85385; hereinafter ‘Komata’).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a display device (10, FIGS. 1 and 24, [0062, 0195]) comprising:
a substrate (11, [0197]);
a pixel circuit (DC including Tr11, Tr12, N11, N12, Cs, Ls, Ld, and Lv, FIGS. 2 and 3, [0063-0064]) including a thin film transistor (Tr11 and Tr12 are thin-film transistors, [0065]) arranged on the substrate (Tr arranged on 11);
a planarization film (13, [0196]) arranged on the substrate and covering the pixel circuit (13 arranged on 11 and covering DC);
a first contact hole (CH14a, FIG. 6B, [0113]) which is configured by a surface of the planarization film (CH14a is configured by a surface of 13);
a first electrode (Ecb, [0196]) electrically connected to a source electrode (Tr12s, [0196]) of the thin film transistor (Ecb electrically connected to Tr12s);
a second electrode (a pixel electrode 16, [0196]) electrically connected to the first electrode (16 electrically connected to Ecb, [0196]), in an area (the area of 16 over CH14a) overlapping with the first contact hole, in planar view (FIG. 24);
a light emitting element (OLED, [0092]) having an anode (the pixel electrode 16, which functions as the anode of OLED; hereinafter ‘A’) and a cathode (20); and,
a metal layer (14, [0114]) arranged between the planarization film and the second electrode (14 arranged between 13 and 16), wherein,
the anode of the light emitting element is electrically connected to the second electrode (A is electrically connected to 16).
Yamamoto does not teach the display device comprising an organic planarization film; the first contact hole which is configured by a sloping surface of the organic planarization film; and the metal layer electrically connected to the cathode of the light emitting element, wherein the metal layer is arranged on the organic planarization film except the sloping surface.
Sung teaches a display device (FIG. 2, [0053]) comprising
an organic planarization film (152, [0059]);
the first contact hole (153, [0060]) which is configured by a sloping surface of the organic planarization film (153 is configured by a sloping surface of 152); and
the metal layer (161 and 162 corresponding to a metal layer, [0061]; hereinafter ‘ML’) electrically connected to the cathode of the light emitting element (162 electrically connected to a common electrode 190 functioning as a cathode of LD, [0050, 0067-0068]),
wherein the metal layer (ML) is arranged on the organic planarization film (ML is formed on 52).
As taught by Sung, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto to obtain and achieve the display device comprising an organic planarization film; the first contact hole which is configured by a sloping surface of the organic planarization film; and the metal layer electrically connected to the cathode of the light emitting element, wherein the metal layer is arranged on the organic planarization film as claimed, because providing a conductive connection structure to the cathode facilitates stable electrical connection to the common electrode, thereby enabling efficient current delivery and improving device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sung in combination with Yamamoto due to above reason.
Yamamoto in view of Sung does not teach the display device, wherein the metal layer is arranged on the organic planarization film except the sloping surface.
Komata teaches a display device (Figure 4, [0045]) wherein the metal layer (OE are formed of a metal, [0037]) is arranged on the organic planarization film except the sloping surface (OE is formed on PL except the sloping surface of the contact hole for PE, [0039]).
As taught by Komata, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung to obtain and achieve the display device, wherein the metal layer is arranged on the organic planarization film except the sloping surface as claimed, because it provides separate contact regions for different conductive elements to ensure electrical isolation and reliable electrical connections. Further, it has been held that that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Komata in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung due to above reason.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, Yamamoto in view of Sung does not teach the display device further comprising a conductive layer is arranged on the first electrode, wherein the second electrode is electrically connected to the first electrode via the conductive layer, and the conductive layer is same material as the metal layer.
Komata teaches the display device further comprising
a conductive layer (AE, Figure 4, [0037]) is arranged on the first electrode (AE is arranged on SE), wherein
the second electrode is electrically connected to the first electrode via the conductive layer (PE is electrically connected to SE via AE, Figure 4), and
the conductive layer is same material as the metal layer (both AE and OE are formed of metal, e.g., Al, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Komata to obtain and achieve the display device further comprising a conductive layer is arranged on the first electrode, wherein the second electrode is electrically connected to the first electrode via the conductive layer, and the conductive layer is same material as the metal layer as claimed, because forming electrode layers of the same material as wiring layers simplifies fabrication, improves process integration, and ensure consistent electrical properties [0086-0087]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
an insulating layer (Yamamoto:15, FIG. 8B, [0090]) covering the organic planarization film and the metal layer (15 covering 13 and 14), wherein
the second electrode is electrically connected to the first electrode (16 is electrically connected to Tr12s, [0097]) in an area (the area of 16 over CH14b, FIGS. 6D, [0115]) overlapping with a second contact hole (CH14b) surrounded by the first contact hole (CH14b surrounded by CH14a), in planar view (shown in FIG. 6D), the second contact hole being a contact hole formed in the insulating layer (CH14b being a contact hole formed in 15).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the metal layer is formed of a metal having a high reflectance (Yamamoto: 14 having a high reflectance characteristic and comprising a metal material, [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein
the pixel circuit includes a drive transistor (Yamamoto: DC having Tr12, FIG. 8B) for driving the light emitting element (Tr12 controlling 19 of OLED, [0075]), and
the first electrode is a source electrode constituting the drive transistor (Tr12s is a source electrode of Tr12, [0082]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0309232) in view of Sung (US 2007/0080377) and Komata (JP 2014-85385), and further in view of Ou et al. (US 2016/0218220; hereinafter ‘Ou’), Uemura et al. (US 2009/0267101; hereinafter ‘Uemura’), and Sakariya et al. (US 2014/0159067; hereinafter ‘Sakariya’).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode, the metal layer, and the second electrode overlap in the area overlapping with the first contact hole in planar view (Yamamoto: Ecb, 14, and 16 overlap in the area overlapping with CH14a in planar view, FIG. 24).
Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata does not teach the display device, wherein the first electrode has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti, the metal layer and the second electrode have a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo, and various metals are stacked in order of Al/Mo/Al/Mo/Ti/Al/Ti from an upper layer to a lower layer.
Ou teaches a display device ([0001]), wherein a first electrode (FID. 7, 450, [0005]) has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti (450 comprises Ti/Al/Ti stack structure).
As taught by Ou, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the first electrode has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti as claimed, because Ti/Al/Ti layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a source/drain region in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ou in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata due to above reason.
Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Ou does not teach the display device, wherein the metal layer and the second electrode have a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo, and various metals are stacked in order of Al/Mo/Al/Mo/Ti/Al/Ti from an upper layer to a lower layer.
Uemura teaches a display device (1, FIG. 4, [0049]), wherein a metal layer (70, [0052]) has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo (70 has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo).
As taught by Uemura, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Ou to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the metal layer has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo as claimed, because Al/Mo layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a reflection layer in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Uemura in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Ou due to above reason.
Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Ou, and Uemura does not teach the display device, wherein the second electrode has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo, and various metals are stacked in order of Al/Mo/Al/Mo/Ti/Al/Ti from an upper layer to a lower layer.
Sakariya teaches a display device (100, FIG. 3B, [0006, 0018]), wherein the second electrode (142, [0036]) has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo (142 is the patterned conductive layer, which has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo, [0037]).
As taught by Sakariya, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Ou, and Uemura to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the second electrode has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Mo as claimed, because Al/Mo layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a patterned conductive layer in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sakariya in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Ou, and Uemura due to above reason.
Furthermore, the resulting stacked configuration of Al/Mo/Al/Mo/Ti/Al/Ti would inevitably be obtained through the straightforward combination of the teachings of Ou, Uemura, and Sakariya.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Ou, Uemura, and Sakariya to obtain and achieve the display device various metals are stacked in order of Al/Mo/Al/Mo/Ti/Al/Ti from an upper layer to a lower layer as claimed, because the multilayer structure constitutes nothing more than a predictable aggregation of the Al/Mo and Ti/Al/Ti stacked configurations. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0309232) in view of Sung (US 2007/0080377) and Komata (JP 2014-85385), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0246677; hereinafter ‘Kim’).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the second electrode is connected to a side surface of the first electrode in the area overlapping with the first contact hole in planar view (Yamamoto: 16 is connected to a side surface of TR12s in the area overlapping with CH14a, FIGS. 6C and 8B).
Note: The term “side surface” is interpreted as referring to a portion of the electrode other than the central top area, including the peripheral or edge region in the contact hole.
Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata does not teach the display device, wherein the first contact hole is formed by cutting away a part of the first electrode in addition to the organic planarization film.
Kim teaches a display device (FIG. 3, [0047, 0049]), wherein the first contact hole (185, [0069]) is formed by cutting away a part of the first electrode (175) in addition to the organic planarization film (180).
As taught by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata to obtain and achieve the display device, wherein the first contact hole is formed by cutting away a part of the first electrode in addition to the organic planarization film as claimed, because exposing the first electrode for cutting increases contact area and lowers contact resistance, and forming the recess over semiconductor regions serves to secure reliable contact and prevent insulation damage [0012, 0125-0126].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kim in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata due to above reason.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0309232) in view of Sung (US 2007/0080377), Komata (JP 2014-85385), and Kim (US 2014/0246677), and further in view of Ou (US 2016/0218220), Shimatsu (WO2020/162355, equivalent to US 2022/0085335 as translation), and Sakariya (US 2014/0159067).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Kim teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the second electrode is connected to first electrode, in the area overlapping with the first contact hole in planar view (Yamamoto: 16 is connected to Tr12s, in the area overlapping with CH14a, FIGS. 6C and 8B).
Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Kim does not teach the display device, wherein the first electrode has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti, the metal layer and the second electrode have a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti, and Ti that is one of metals constituting the second electrode is connected to Ti/Al/Ti constituting the first electrode.
Ou teaches a display device ([0001]), wherein a first electrode (FID. 7, 450, [0005]) has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti (450 comprises Ti/Al/Ti stack structure).
As taught by Ou, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Kim to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the first electrode has a three-layer stacked structure of Ti/Al/Ti as claimed, because Ti/Al/Ti layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a source/drain region in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ou in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, and Kim due to above reason.
Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, and Ou does not teach the display device, wherein the metal layer and the second electrode have a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti, and Ti that is one of metals constituting the second electrode is connected to Ti/Al/Ti constituting the first electrode.
Shimatsu teaches a display device ([0005]), wherein a metal layer (40, FIG. 30A, [0386]) has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti (40 includes Al/Ti laminated structure, [0233]).
As taught by Shimatsu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, and Ou to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the metal layer has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti as claimed, because Al/Ti layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a reflection layer in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Shimatsu in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, and Ou due to above reason.
Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, Ou, and Shimatsu does not teach the display device, wherein the second electrode has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti, and Ti that is one of metals constituting the second electrode is connected to Ti/Al/Ti constituting the first electrode.
Sakariya teaches a display device (100, FIG. 3B, [0006, 0018]), wherein the second electrode (142, [0036]) has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti (142 is the patterned conductive layer, which has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti, [0037]).
As taught by Sakariya, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, Ou, and Shimatsu to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the second electrode has a two-layer stacked structure of Al/Ti as claimed, because Al/Ti layer stacked structure is a well-known material and widely used as a patterned conductive layer in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sakariya in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung, Komata, Kim, Ou, and Shimatsu due to above reason.
Furthermore, the resulting stacked configuration of Al/Ti/Al/Ti/Ti/Al/Ti would inevitably be obtained through the straightforward combination of the teachings of Ou, Shimatsu, and Sakariya.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Ou, Shimatsu, and Sakariya to obtain and achieve the display device Ti that is one of metals constituting the second electrode is connected to Ti/Al/Ti constituting the first electrode as claimed, because the multilayer structure constitutes nothing more than a predictable aggregation of the Al/Ti and Ti/Al/Ti stacked configurations. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2008/0309232) in view of Sung (US 2007/0080377) and Komata (JP 2014-85385), and further in view of Sakariya (US 2014/0159067).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata teaches the display device of claim 1, but does not teach the display device, wherein the light emitting element is a micro-LED.
Sakariya teaches a display device (FIG. 4D, [0021]), wherein the light emitting element (400, [0042]) is a micro-LED (400 is a micro LED).
As taught by Sakariya, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata to obtain and achieve the display device wherein the light emitting element is a micro-LED as claimed, because micro-LED provides higher luminous efficiency, lower power consumption, and improved operational reliability [0029].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sakariya in combination with Yamamoto in view of Sung and Komata due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EVA MONTALVO can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 5/6/26
Prosecution Insights