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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment, received 1/23/2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (US Pub. No. 2022/0019305 A1).
As to claim 1, Ye discloses a display device (fig 2, [0037]) comprising:
a substrate (fig 2, 200);
a lower metal layer (2013; [0049]) disposed on the substrate (200);
a light emitting element (OLED comprising: lower electrode 2021, EL layer 2022, and cathode layer 2023) disposed on the lower metal layer (2013), wherein the light emitting element includes a lower electrode (2021), a light emitting layer (2019a), and an upper electrode (2023) sequentially disposed;
a pixel defining layer (2019) disposed on the lower metal layer (2013), wherein the pixel defining layer exposes at least a portion of the lower electrode (opening 2019a of PDL 2019 exposes lower electrode 2021); and
a residual sacrificial layer (2024) disposed on an upper surface of the pixel defining layer (upper surface of 2019), wherein portions of the upper electrode (2023) on the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (upper surface of 2019) are disconnected from each other with the residual sacrificial layer (2024) on the upper surface of the pixel defining layer (upper surface of 2019) therebetween.
As to claim 2, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
wherein an opening is defined through the lower metal layer to expose an upper surface of the substrate and to overlap the residual sacrificial layer (fig 2, opening in 2013 exposes the upper surface and overlaps 2024).
As to claim 3, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
wherein the lower metal layer includes molybdenum ([0049]).
As to claim 4, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
wherein the residual sacrificial layer includes a metal material ([0052]).
As to claim 6, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
wherein the upper electrode (2023) is divided into a first portion disposed on the light emitting layer (portion of 2023 on 2022) and a second portion disposed only on the pixel defining layer (portion of 2023 only on PDL 2019), and
wherein the residual sacrificial layer (2024) is spaced apart from each of the first portion (portion of 2023 on 2022) and the second portion of the upper electrode (portion of 2023 on uppermost surface of 2019).
As to claim 7, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
a thin film encapsulation structure (203; [0053]) disposed on the residual sacrificial layer (2024) and the upper electrode (2023), wherein the thin film encapsulation structure (203) includes an inorganic layer ([0053]).
As to claim 8, Ye discloses the display device of claim 7 (paragraphs above),
wherein an upper surface of the residual sacrificial layer (upper surface of 2024) directly contacts the thin film encapsulation structure (203).
As to claim 9, Ye discloses the display device of claim 7 (paragraphs above),
wherein the thin film encapsulation structure is a single layer (lowermost inorganic layer of 203 is considered to be the structure, [0053]).
As to claim 10, Ye discloses the display device of claim 1 (paragraphs above),
a buffer layer (2014) disposed on the substrate (200) and covering the lower metal layer (2013);
an inorganic insulating layer (2016; [0049]) disposed on the buffer layer (2014); and
an organic insulating layer (2018; [0049]) disposed on the inorganic insulating layer (2016).
As to claim 11, Ye discloses the display device of claim 10 (paragraphs above),
wherein the inorganic insulating layer (2016), the organic insulating layer (2018), and the pixel defining layer (2019) constitute an insulating structure (2016/2018/2019), and
wherein a through hole (20172) is defined through the insulating structure (2016/2018/2019) to be adjacent to the residual sacrificial layer (2024).
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.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Zhang et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0344448 A1), hereafter referred to as Zhang.
As to claim 5, Ye discloses the display device of claim 4 (paragraphs above).
Ye does not disclose wherein the residual sacrificial layer includes at least one selected from aluminum (Al) and silver (Ag).
Nonetheless, Zhang discloses wherein the material of the common electrode of a display device includes at least one selected from aluminum (Al) and silver (Ag) ([0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the material for the common electrode and residual sacrificial layer of Ye with the material as taught by Zhang since this will provide a low resistance electrical connection to the cathode section of the array of light emitting pixels in the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claim 12 is 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: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 13. Specifically, a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising: providing a residual sacrificial layer on the pixel defining layer; providing a spacer on the residual sacrificial layer; providing a light emitting layer on the lower electrode; providing an upper electrode on the pixel defining layer, the light emitting layer and the spacer; and removing the spacer by radiating a laser to the residual sacrificial layer, as recited in claim 13. Claims 14-20 are allowable because of their dependence from claim 13. Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, wherein the upper electrode extends to an upper surface of the buffer layer which is exposed through the through hole, as recited in claim 12 and including the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Ye does not disclose a residual sacrificial layer disposed on an upper surface of the pixel defining layer, wherein portions of the upper electrode on the upper surface of the pixel defining layer are disconnected from each other with the residual sacrificial layer therebetween.
Examiner disagrees because figure 2 of Ye shows that the residual sacrificial layer 2024 is on an upper surface of the pixel defining layer 2019, wherein portions of the upper electrode 2023 on the upper surface of the pixel defining layer 2019 are disconnected from each other with the residual sacrificial layer therebetween.
Applicant argued that claim 5 is allowable because of its dependence from claim 1.
Examiner disagrees because claim 1 anticipated in view of Ye as discussed above.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0194396 A1 and US Pub. No. 2017/0040397 A1.
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 SHAUN M CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3830. The examiner can normally be reached on MWFS: 7:30-6pm Thurs 1-2pm.
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, Purvis, Sue can be reached at (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN M CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 2/4/2026
Prosecution Insights