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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/12/2016, have been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending, with Claims 20-21 withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-21 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected invention, Invention II, drawn to the method of fabricating the display device. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed 11/13/2025.
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)(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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20240250065 A1) hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding Claim 15, Figures 12 and 15 of Park teaches: A display device (300A) comprising: a substrate (310); a pixel electrode (350) and a common electrode (372) extending in a first direction (left/right horizontally) on the substrate and spaced apart from each other in a second direction (up/down vertically); and at least one light-emitting element (150) on the substrate and in a space between the pixel electrode and the common electrode (Figure 15), and wherein the at least one light-emitting element comprises a first contact electrode (154) in contact with the pixel electrode on a side surface (left horizontally), and a second contact electrode (155) in contact with the common electrode at one end of the at least one light-emitting element, wherein the pixel electrode is in contact with opposite sides (Figure 15) of the first contact electrode in a direction perpendicular (left/right horizontally) to a thickness direction (up/down vertically) of the display device, one of the opposite sides being the side surface.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20240250065 A1) hereinafter “Park” in view of Song et al. (US 20210111142 A1) hereinafter “Song.”
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 12 and 15 of Park teaches: A display device (300A) comprising: a substrate (310); a thin-film transistor (Paragraph 0150) on the substrate and comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and a semiconductor layer (Paragraph 0150); an organic layer (330; Paragraph 0228) on the first insulating layer; at least one light-emitting element (150) on the organic layer; a pixel electrode (350) on the organic layer and in contact with a side surface of the at least one light-emitting element; a planarization layer (360) on the side surface of the at least one of light-emitting element; and a common electrode (372) on the at least one light-emitting element and the planarization layer, wherein the pixel electrode is in contact with opposite sides of the at least one light-emitting element in a direction (left/right horizontally) perpendicular to a thickness direction (up/down vertically) of the display device, one of the opposite sides being the side surface.
Park does not teach: a first insulating layer on the thin-film transistor;
Figure 2 of Song teaches: a display device (PXL) comprising: a substrate (SUB), a thin-film transistor (TFTL), a light-emitting element (LED), and an insulating layer (IL3) on the thin-film transistor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first insulating layer on the thin-film transistor because Song teaches an insulating film is formed over a conductive layer to insulate the source and drain electrodes from subsequent processing (Song Paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 2, Figures 12 and 15 of Park teach: the at least one light-emitting element (150) comprises a first contact electrode (154) on the organic layer (330) and in contact with the pixel electrode (350) on the side surface; a device rod (combination of 151, 152, and 153) overlapping the first contact electrode; and a second contact electrode (155) overlapping the device rod and in contact with the common electrode (372).
Regarding Claim 22, Figures 12 and 14 of Park teach: the pixel electrode (350) surrounds the at least one light-emitting element (150) in a plan view (Paragraph 0198; Wherein item 350 is formed to be the entire area around the side surface of item 150).
Regarding Claim 23, Figures 12 and 14 of Park teach: the pixel electrode (350) and the first contact electrode (154) are each directly on the organic layer (330).
Claims 3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20240250065 A1) hereinafter “Park” in view of Song et al. (US 20210111142 A1) hereinafter “Song” and Feng et al. (US 20210175220 A1) hereinafter “Feng.”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Park and Song teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park does not teach: the first contact electrode comprises a protrusion protruding outward from the device rod in a first direction, wherein the pixel electrode is arranged along the protrusion, and wherein the first direction is perpendicular to a stack direction of the device rod.
Figure 1 of Feng teaches: A display device (Paragraph 0041) comprising: a substrate (100); a thin-film transistor (120) on the substrate, at least one light-emitting element (110) and the light-emitting element comprises a first contact electrode (111) with a protrusion (1111). protruding outward in a first direction (left/right horizontally) and wherein the first direction is perpendicular to a stack direction (up/down vertically).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first contact electrode comprises a protrusion protruding outward from the device rod in a first direction, wherein the pixel electrode is arranged along the protrusion, and wherein the first direction is perpendicular to a stack direction of the device rod because Feng teaches a protruding portion of the contact electrode is used to electrically connect the light-emitting device to the drain of a transistor (Feng Paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Park and Song teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park does not teach: one or more pixel connection holes penetrating through the organic layer in a sub-pixel area.
Figure 5 of Feng teaches: one or more pixel connection holes (109) penetrating through the organic layer (102) in a sub-pixel area (Figure 1; 102 and below).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more pixel connection holes penetrating through the organic layer in a sub-pixel area.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Park and Song teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park does not teach: the first contact electrode comprises a protrusion protruding outward from the second contact electrode in the first direction, and wherein the pixel electrode is arranged along the protrusion.
Figure 1 of Feng teaches: A display device (Paragraph 0041) comprising: a substrate (100); a thin-film transistor (120) on the substrate, at least one light-emitting element (110) and the light-emitting element comprises a first contact electrode (111) with a protrusion (1111). protruding outward in a first direction (left/right horizontally)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first contact electrode comprises a protrusion protruding outward from the device rod in a first direction and wherein the pixel electrode is arranged along the protrusion because Feng teaches a protruding portion of the contact electrode is used to electrically connect the light-emitting device to the drain of a transistor (Feng Paragraph 0063).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20240250065 A1) hereinafter “Park” in view of Song et al. (US 20210111142 A1) hereinafter “Song” and Chae et al. (US 20210126044 A1) hereinafter “Chae.”
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Park and Song teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park does not teach: the first contact electrode is a high reflectance electrode.
Figure 2A of Chae teaches: a light emitting structure (Paragraph 0153) with a contact electrode (27); wherein the first contact electrode is a high reflectance electrode (Paragraph 0158).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first contact electrode is a high reflectance electrode because Chae teaches a contact electrode with a high reflectance improves light output efficiency of the light emitting structure (Chae Paragraph 0158).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Park and Song teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as stated above.
Park does not teach: the first contact electrode has a height from about 0.5 µm to about 3 µm.
Figure 2A of Chae teaches: a light emitting structure (Paragraph 0153) with a contact electrode (37) that has a thickness of 2000 Angstroms to about 2 µm (Paragraph 0164)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first contact electrode has a height from about 0.5 µm to about 3 µm because Chae teaches a contact electrode formed with a thickness of 2000 Angstroms (0.2 µm) to about 2 µm can be used to connect to common lines (Chae Paragraph 0164-0165).
Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, the claimed range, about 0.5 µm to about 3 µm, overlaps the range of Chae, 2000 Angstroms (0.2 µm) to about 2 µm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 12-14, 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have a first protrusion protruding outward from the device rod in a first direction, and the second sub-contact electrode comprises a second protrusion protruding outward from the device rod in the first direction, along with the limitations of Claims 2 and 1. Claims 5-8 are also objected to as they depend from and include all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have at least a part of the first pixel connection hole or a part of the second pixel connection hole overlaps the first light-emitting element or the second light- emitting element along with the limitations of Claims 11, 2 and 1. Claims 13-14 are also objected to as they depend from and include all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first sub-contact electrode comprises a first protrusion protruding outward from the second contact electrode in the first direction, and the second sub- contact electrode comprises a second protrusion protruding outward from the second contact electrode in the first direction along with the limitations of Claim 15. Claims 18-19 are also objected to as they depend from and include all of the limitations of Claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park and Song.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Halee Cramer whose telephone number is (571)270-1641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/HALEE CRAMER/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights