DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a contact electrode of the connection electrodes in contact with a contact electrode of the contact electrodes through a contact opening penetrating the interlayer insulation layer exposed by the first opening and the second opening” appears to contain a grammatical or typographical error which renders the limitation unclear.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “a first (second) connection electrode” is unclear as to how it is related to the “a connection electrode of the connection electrodes” and the “connection electrodes” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the contact electrode” is unclear as to how it is related to the “a contact electrode of the contact electrodes” and the “contact electrodes” recited in claim 1.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20220102423; herein “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses in Fig. 18 and related text a display device comprising:
contact electrodes on a substrate (CDP/VL2, see [0078]);
an interlayer insulation layer (IL3; see also VIA in Fig. 15 and [0082]) on the contact electrodes;
a passivation layer (PAS1, see [0083]) on the interlayer insulation layer;
a plurality of electrodes (e.g. RME1/2, see [0058]) on the passivation layer;
a first insulation layer (PAS2, see [0083]) on the plurality of electrodes;
light emitting elements (31/36/32/37 of ED1, see [0064]) between the plurality of pixel electrodes; and
connection electrodes (CNE1/2, see [0083]) electrically connected to the light emitting elements,
wherein the passivation layer and the first insulation layer include a first opening (opening in PAS1 above CTD) and a second opening (opening in PAS2 above CTD), respectively, that expose the interlayer insulation layer (e.g. CTD/CTS), and
wherein a connection electrode of the connection electrodes in contact with a contact electrode of the contact electrodes through a contact opening (CTD) penetrating the interlayer insulation layer exposed by the first opening and the second opening (see Fig. 18);
wherein a first thickness of a first area (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 below for one example interpretation of “first area”) of the interlayer insulation layer, a second thickness of a second area (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 below for one example interpretation of “second area”) of the interlayer insulation layer, and a third thickness of a third area (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 below for one example interpretation of “third area”; note that the third thickness can be taken anywhere at a point along the tapered edge of CTD) of the interlayer insulation layer are different from each other, wherein the first area is farthest from a center of the contact opening, the third area is nearest to the center of the of the contact opening, and the second area is between the first area and the third area.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses further comprising a second insulation layer (e.g. 38, see [0103]) between the light emitting elements and the connection electrodes (CNE1/2).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein the connection electrodes comprise a first connection electrode (CNE1) in contact with first end portions of the light emitting elements, and a second connection electrode (CNE2) in contact with second end portions of the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein the first connection electrode (CNE1) is in contact with the contact electrodes (CDP).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further disclose wherein the passivation layer (PAS1) covers the first area of the interlayer insulation layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above), and includes the first opening (opening in PAS1 above CTD) exposing a second area of the interlayer insulation layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein the thickness of the first area of the interlayer insulation layer is greater than the second thickness of the second area of the interlayer insulation layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further disclose wherein the first insulation layer (PAS2) covers the second area of the interlayer insulation layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above), and includes the second opening exposing (opening in PAS2 above CTD) exposing the third area of the interlayer insulation layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein the second thickness of the second area of the interlayer insulation layer is greater than the third thickness of the third area of the interlayer insulating layer (see annotated inset of Fig. 18 above; note that the third thickness can be taken anywhere at a point along the tapered edge of CTD).
Regarding claim 15, Kim further discloses further comprising a lower metal layer (e.g. S1, see [0076]) between the substrate and the contact electrodes, wherein the lower metal layer overlaps the contact opening.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in view of Yun et al. (US 20210376192; herein “Yun”).
Regarding claims 2 (second interpretation) and 3, Kim does not explicitly disclose
a second insulation layer between the light emitting elements and the connection electrodes;
wherein the contact opening penetrates the second insulation layer to expose the contact electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches in Fig. 9C and related text a display device comprising
a second insulation layer between the light emitting elements and the connection electrodes (e.g. a second portion of INS1 in the instance that it is a multi-layer, see [0270]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim by having a second insulation layer between the light emitting elements and the connection electrodes, as taught by Yun in order to employ a known-alternative structure for the insulating layer. Yun shows that a multi-layer insulating structure is an equivalent structure known in the art to that of a single layer insulating structure. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a multi-layer for the single layer of PAS1 of Kim, resulting in one portion being interpreted as the “passivation layer,” and another portion being interpreted as the “second insulation layer.” The limitation “wherein the contact opening penetrates the second insulation layer to expose the contact electrode” is therefore taught by the combination of the contact opening penetrating PAS1 to expose the contact electrode, as shown by Kim, and a portion of PAS1 being the second insulation layer, as shown by Yun.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kim does not explicitly disclose
a via layer between the passivation layer and the pixel electrodes;
wherein the via layer covers the first area of the interlayer insulation layer, and includes a third opening exposing the second area of the interlayer insulation layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun teaches in Fig. 9C and related text a display device comprising
a via layer between the passivation layer and the pixel electrodes (e.g. a lower portion of INS1 in the instance that it is a multi-layer, see [0270]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim by having a via layer between the passivation layer and the pixel electrodes, as taught by Yun in order to employ a known-alternative structure for the insulating layer. Yun shows that a multi-layer insulating structure is an equivalent structure known in the art to that of a single layer insulating structure. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a multi-layer for the single layer of PAS1 of Kim, resulting in the upper portion being interpreted as the “passivation layer,” and the lower portion being interpreted as the “via layer.” The limitation “wherein the via layer covers the first area of the interlayer insulation layer, and includes a third opening exposing the second area of the interlayer insulation layer” is therefore taught by the combination of PAS1 covering the first area of the interlayer insulation layer and including a second opening exposing the second area of the interlayer insulation layer, as shown by Kim, and a portion of PAS1 being the via layer, as shown by Yun.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 12-13) that Kim does not teach or suggest “a first thickness of a first area of the interlayer insulation layer, a second thickness of a second area of the interlayer insulation layer, and a third thickness of a third area of the interlayer insulation layer are different from each other, wherein the first area is farthest from a center of the contact opening, the third area is nearest to the center of the of the contact opening, and the second area is between the first area and the third area.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The limitation is taught in the manner outlined in the rejection and shown in the annotated inset of Fig. 18 above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights