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
The amended title overcomes the objection.
See the new rejections below of the amended claims.
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, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han, US 2019/0326372 A1.
Claim 1: Han discloses
a plurality of pixel electrodes (218) spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality pixel electrodes includes a central part (middle) and a peripheral part (outside) surrounding the central part;
a pixel defining layer (215d) 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 which is recessed from the lateral side and exposes a top surface of the peripheral part;
a light emitting material (230) disposed on the central part exposed through the pixel opening;
and a common electrode (228) 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. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
722
media_image1.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. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: a portion of the second part which does not overlap the undercut portion when viewed in a plan view electrically makes contact with the first part.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
478
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: the pixel defining layer directly contacts with the extension part (FIG. 10).
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 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han.
Claim 2: the embodiment of Han FIG. 10 does not illustrate the forward-tapered shape. However, the embodiment of FIG. 9G shows that the pixel defining layer has a forward-tapered shape (FIG. 9G) 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 (FIGS. 10, 9G). It would have been obvious to have had such as shape as known within the same reference to make the pixel defining layer undercut shape.
Claim 3: a height of the undercut portion is gradually decreased in the direction from the central part toward the peripheral part (FIG. 9G).
Claim 5: FIG. 10 only shows one pixel, but Han discloses multiple pixels (see e.g. FIG. 7), and in a view including multiple pixels, Han reads on claim 5. See the altered FIG. 10 below that has multiple pixels. Han includes a first pixel electrode and a second pixel electrode disposed adjacent to each other, wherein the undercut portion includes: a first undercut portion overlapping a peripheral part of the first pixel electrode when viewed in a plan view; and a second undercut portion 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
336
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to those in the art that such a structure would be present in Han between pixels, although it is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Yun, US 2022/0085125 A1. Han does not show the overhead view of the cathode, and thus does not illustrate what connections it has. Yun, FIGS. 9 and 10, discloses undercut structure UC used to disconnect the cathode layer 333 for the purpose of preventing leakage current ([0054]), the same purpose for which Han creates disconnects in the cathode ([0121]).
PNG
media_image5.png
444
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
308
672
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus those in the art would see the disclosure of Yun to teach that a partial disconnection around part of the subpixel would effectively protect against leakage current. Applying Yun to Han, it would have been obvious to have the undercut (which disconnects the cathode in Han) only go partially around the subpixel, and that in the places around the subpixel where the cathode is not disconnected, a portion of the second part which does not overlap the undercut portion when viewed in a plan view electrically makes contact with the first part.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Zhao, US 2021/0288120 A1. Han 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_image7.png
621
442
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to have used such a groove to facilitate ink distribution during manufacturing ([0071]). Note that there would likely 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 Han in view of Kim, US 2014/0183472 A1. Han does not disclose that the pixel defining layer 126 is positive photoresist material. However, this was a known material for pixel defining layers. See e.g. Kim [0067]: “the bank layer 135A may be formed using a positive photoresist.” It would have been obvious to have used this in Han as a known material used for a known purpose.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights