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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR-10-2009-0021443 A) in view of Woo (US. Pub: 2022/0209174 A1) of record. The Examiner is using the machine generated English translation of the foreign reference.
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) a display device comprising: a substrate (100); a pixel electrode (115) arranged on the substrate; a sacrificial layer (116a) arranged on the pixel electrode so as to be adjacent to an outer boundary of the pixel electrode when viewed in a plan view (see at least fig. 1); a pixel defining layer (112, 117) arranged on the substrate, coming into direct contact with an entire top surface of the sacrificial layer (116a), and defining a pixel opening exposing a part of the pixel electrode (115); a conductive layer (122a) covering a side surface of the pixel defining layer defining the pixel opening (see fig. 1); a light emitting material (130) arranged on the pixel electrode within the pixel opening; and a common electrode including a first common electrode (150) covering a top surface of the light emitting material (130b) in the pixel opening; wherein the first common electrode (150) is electrically connected through the conductive layer (122a).
Choi does not expressly disclose a second common electrode covering a top surface of the pixel defining layer, wherein the first common electrode and the second common electrode are electrically connected through the conductive layer.
Woo in the same field of endeavor discloses (in at least fig. 1) a common electrode including a first electrode (164; [0066]-[0067]) covering a top surface of the light emitting material (163) in the pixel opening, and a second common electrode (165; [0068]) covering a top surface of the pixel layer defining layer (310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention arrange the display device of Choi with the first and second common electrode of Woo such that the first and second electrode of Woo are electrically connected through the conductive layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the pixel-defining layer (112, 117) defines an undercut space while being spaced apart from a part of the pixel electrode (115) adjacent to the sacrificial layer (116a), and the conductive layer (122a) is spaced apart from the pixel electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the light emitting material (130) fills the undercut space (see fig. 1), and the light emitting material (130) is arranged between the conductive layer (122a) and the pixel electrode (115).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Choi and Woo discloses (in at least fig. 1 both refs) each of the first common electrode (164) and the second common electrode (165) comes into direct contact with the conductive layer (122a).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the sacrificial layer (116a) is spaced apart from the conductive layer (122a).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the side surface of the pixel defining layer (112, 117) has a reverse taper shape with respect to a top surface of the pixel electrode (115).
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the conductive layer (122a) further extends from the side surface of the pixel defining layer (112, 117) to the top surface of the pixel defining layer adjacent to the side surface of the pixel defining layer.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Choi and Woo discloses (in at least fig. 1 both refs) the second common electrode (165) further covers the conductive layer (122a) arranged on the top surface of the pixel defining layer (112, 117).
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) a protective pattern (120) arranged on the top surface of the pixel defining layer (112, 117).
Regarding claim 10, Choi as modified by Woo does not expressly disclose the protective pattern includes a material identical to the conductive layer.
However, Choi discloses (in at least fig. 1) the protective layer comprises an organic layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the protective pattern of Choi as modified by Woo with a material identical to the conductive layer in order to reduce the manufacturing steps of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Choi and Woo discloses (in at least fig. 1 both refs) the second common electrode (165) further covers the protective pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875