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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), filed on May 4, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2023 has been considered.
Election/Restriction
Pursuant to the applicant’s election of invention I without traverse on December 1, 2025, non-elected claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: OLED DISPLAY WITH PIXEL DEFINING LAYER HAVING AN UNDERCUT
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choung, US 11,348,983 B1.
Claim 1: Choung discloses
a plurality of pixel electrodes (104) spaced apart from each other (FIG. 1C), wherein each pixel electrode includes a central part and a peripheral part surrounding the central part;
a pixel defining layer (126+110) disposed on the plurality of pixel electrodes, the pixel defining layer including an overlap part overlapping the peripheral part when viewed in a plan view and a lateral side which exposes the central part to define a pixel opening, wherein a portion of the overlap part has an undercut portion (110A) which is recessed from the lateral side;
a light emitting material (112) disposed on the central part exposed through the pixel opening;
and a common electrode (114) including a first part disposed on the light emitting material on the central part and a second part disposed on the pixel defining layer, wherein the common electrode has a disconnected portion along the undercut portion (FIG. 4H).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: the pixel defining layer has a forward-tapered shape with respect to the plurality of pixel electrodes, and wherein the undercut portion is recessed from the lateral side of the pixel defining layer in a direction from the central part toward the peripheral part.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: a height of the undercut portion is gradually decreased in the direction from the central part toward the peripheral part.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: a height of the undercut portion which is disposed adjacent to the central part is higher than a height of the light emitting material disposed on the central part (FIG. 4H). The term “adjacent” can be defined as “not distant : nearby … immediately preceding or following with nothing similar intervening” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent). Therefore “the undercut portion which is disposed adjacent to the central part” is interpreted as the part of the undercut that is closest to the center, that is, most rightward in FIG. 4H.
Claim 5: the plurality of pixel electrodes include a first pixel electrode (left 104, FIG. 1A) and a second pixel electrode (right 104, FIG. 1A) disposed adjacent to each other, wherein the undercut portion includes:
a first undercut portion (right side of left pixel, FIG. 1B) overlapping a peripheral part of the first pixel electrode when viewed in a plan view;
and a second undercut portion (left side of right pixel) overlapping a peripheral part of the second pixel electrode when viewed in a plan view,
and wherein each of the first undercut portion and the second undercut portion is interposed between a central part of the first pixel electrode and a central part of the second pixel electrode.
PNG
media_image4.png
300
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: a portion of the second part (the furthest right in FIG. 4H) which does not overlap the undercut portion when viewed in a plan view electrically makes contact with the first part. The portion 110 is conductive (col. 4 ll. 46-47). Thus the first and second parts are in electrical contact through the conductive portion 110.
Claim 7: each of the plurality of pixel electrodes includes: an extension part that extends from an outer portion of the each of the plurality of pixel electrodes in a direction from the central part to the peripheral part and does not overlap the undercut portion of the peripheral part when viewed in a plan view. The embodiment of FIG. 4H corresponds to FIG. 1D, and thus the pixel defining layer only exists on two sides, left and right in the figures. Thus on the top and the bottom, extension parts for each pixel can be defined that do not overlap the undercut portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
394
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: the pixel defining layer directly contacts with the extension part (on the left and right).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of Zhao, US 2021/0288120 A1. Choung does not disclose the claimed groove. Zhao discloses a pixel defining layer (102/104) that includes a groove (104) recessed in a direction from a top surface of the pixel defining layer and toward a top surface of the peripheral part (that is, it is recessed downward):
PNG
media_image6.png
634
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have used such a groove to facilitate ink distribution during manufacturing ([0071]). Note that there would be sufficient spacer over the undercut portion for such a groove, so that the groove overlaps the undercut portion when viewed in a plan view
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung in view of He, US 2020/0373358. Choung does not disclose that the (lower part of) the pixel defining layer 126 is photoresist material. However, this was a known material for pixel defining layers. See e.g. He [0008]-[0009]. It would have been obvious to have used this in Choung as a known material used for a known purpose. “positive photoresist material” is interpreted to mean a photoresist patterned to leave a (positive) pattern, which would be the case in making a pixel defining layer out of photoresist material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897