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 to Amendment
An Amendment filed on 07/31/2026, responding to the Office Action mailed on 05/26/2026, has
been acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final Rejection is made with all the
suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-9 of the remarks filed on 07/31/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose "wherein a width of the first branch part in the first direction decreases as a distance from the stem part in the second direction increases in a plan view". Applicant further argues that Han only teaches a protrusion 277 having a triangular shape in Z direction which is perpendicular to a substrate as shown in Fig. 5 and thus a width of the protrusion 277 of Han decreases along the Z direction but not along X or Y direction which is parallel to the substrate, as required by Claim 1. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Fig. 3 of Han shows a plan view of the display device comprising an electrode 270 including a stem part 277 and a first branch part 275, and the width W of the first branch part 275 in the first direction Y decreases as a distance from the stem part 277 in the second direction X increases in a plan view (see annotated Fig. 3: 270, 277, 275, W,1, W2, X, Y, paragraph 0093). Note that the portion 277 of the electrode is interpreted as the stem part and the portion 275 of the electrode is interpreted as the first branch part. Therefore the rejection of Claim 1 and its dependents in view of the cited prior art references is maintained.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20240196697 A1), in view of Han et al. (US 20160334671 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate SUB (Fig. 3: SUB, paragraph 0064);
a transistor TR disposed on the substrate SUB (Fig.3: TR, SUB, paragraph 0064);
a power electrode AXE disposed on the substrate SUB (Fig. 3: AXE, paragraph 0064);
a pixel electrode PXL disposed on the transistor TR (Fig. 3: PXL, TR, paragraph 0058);
a light emitting layer EL disposed on each of the pixel electrode PXL and the power electrode AXE (Fig. 3: EL, PXL, AXE, paragraph 0092);
and a common electrode CE disposed on the light emitting layer EL (Fig. 3: COM, EL, paragraph 0093),
wherein the power electrode AXE includes a stem part AXE extending in a first direction Y and at least one first branch part AXE_p1 protruding from the stem part AXE in a second direction X crossing the first direction Y in a plan view (Fig. 4 : AXE, AXE_p1, X, Y, paragraph 0105),
and the first direction Y and the second direction X are parallel to the substrate SUB (Fig. 4 : SUB, X, Y),
and wherein a width of the first branch part AXE_p1 in the first direction Y decreases as a distance from the stem part AXE in the second direction X increases in a plan view.
Han et al. teaches a display device comprising an electrode 270 including a stem part 277 and a first branch part 275, and wherein a width W of the first branch part 275 in the first direction Y decreases as a distance from the stem part 277 in the second direction X increases in a plan view (see annotated Fig. 3: 270, 277, 275, W,1, W2, X, Y, paragraph 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim and Han et al. in order to have the first branch part have a shape in which a width decreases as a distance from the stem part increases in a plan view. Doing so would minimize electric field at the edges, thereby creating a more uniform distribution, as recognized by Han et al. (paragraph 0093).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the power electrode AXE further includes at least one second branch part AXE_p2 protruding from the stem part AXE in a third direction -X opposite to the second direction X in a plan view (Fig. 4 : AXE, AXE_p2, X, -X, paragraph 0105).
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Han et al. (US 20160334671 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein the first branch part AXE_p1 and the second branch part AXE_p2 are symmetrical to each other with respect to the stem part AXE in a plan view (Fig. 4 : AXE, AXE_p1, AXE_p2).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim fails to explicitly disclose the display device of claim 2, wherein the first branch part AXE_p1 and the second branch part AXE_p2 are asymmetrical to each other with respect to the stem part AXE in a plan view (Fig. 4 : AXE, AXE_p1, AXE_p2).
However, according to MPEP § 2144.04 (B), the shape of the electrode is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Since the Applicant has not shown persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the groove is
significant (see paragraph 0087 of originally filed disclosure), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape of the electrode of Kim such that the first branch part and the second branch part are asymmetrical to each other with respect to the stem part in a plan view.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Kim and Han et al. fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a length of the power electrode in the first direction to a length of the power electrode in the second direction in a plan view is about 1:20 to about 20:1.
However, Han et al. teaches wherein a length of the electrode 270 in the first direction (vertical direction) is greater than the length of the electrode in the second direction (horizontal direction) in a plan view (see Fig. 3: 270), translating to a ratio of a length of the electrode in the first direction to a length of the electrode in the second direction in a plan view is greater than about 1:1, which overlaps with the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim and Han et al. in order to have a ratio of a length of the power electrode in the first direction to a length of the power electrode in the second direction in a plan view is about 1:20 to about 20:1. Doing so would ensure appropriate electrode dimension for optimum optical transparency, charge injection and electric field distribution.
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20240196697 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Su et al. (US 20230200128 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the power electrode AXE includes:
a first electrode layer AXE (Fig. 5: AXE, paragraph 0112);
a second electrode layer PAS_P disposed on the first electrode layer AXE (Fig. 5: AXE, PAS_P, 0112);
and a third electrode layer disposed on the second electrode layer,
wherein a side surface of the first electrode layer AXE protrudes from a side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P (Fig. 5: AXE, PAS_P).
Su et al. teaches a display device comprising a power electrode 56, 31, 40, wherein the power electrode includes a third electrode layer 31_2 (see annotated Fig. 8: 56, 31, 40,, 31_1, 31_2, paragraph 0077).
Note that the electrode layer 31 in Fig. 8 of Su et al. has two portions annotated as 31_1 and 31_2 and are interpreted as the second electrode layer and third electrode layer respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim and Su et al. in order to have a third electrode layer disposed on the second electrode layer. Doing so would enable the multiple electrode layers to individually serve various functions such improve adhesion, optical transparency and charge injection.
PNG
media_image2.png
706
1430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Su et al. (US 20230200128 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Su et al. discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein a side surface of the third electrode layer 31_2 protrudes from the side surface of the second electrode layer 31_1 (see annotated Fig. 8: 31_1, 31_2).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim fails to explicitly disclose the display device of claim 5, wherein the side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P forms an angle of about 10 degrees or more and about 150 degrees or less with respect to an upper surface of the first electrode layer AXE in a cross-sectional view.
Kim discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein the side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P forms an acute angle of about 0 degrees or more and about 90 degrees or less with respect to an upper surface of the first electrode layer AXE in a cross-sectional view (see Fig. 5: AXE, PAS_P).
Thus, the disclosed range of Kim overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 5 of Kim (US 20240196697 A1))]
PNG
media_image3.png
897
1122
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein the light emitting layer EL includes:
a first light emitting layer EL_1 disposed on the pixel electrode PXL (see annotated Fig. 5: EL1, EL2, Fig. 3: PXL, EL paragraph 0092);
and a second light emitting layer EL2 disposed on the power electrode AXE and spaced apart from the first light emitting layer EL1 (see annotated Fig. 5: EL1, EL2, AXE, paragraph 0092),
and wherein the first light emitting layer EL1 contacts the side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P (annotated Fig. 5: EL1, PAS_P).
Note that in Fig. 5 of Kim, the first light emitting layer EL1 contacts the side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P through the intermediate layer CE.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the display device of claim 8, wherein the common electrode CE includes:
a first common electrode CE1 disposed on the first light emitting layer EL1 and covering the first light emitting layer EL1 (annotated Fig. 5: CE1, EL1, paragraph 0093);
and a second common electrode CE2 disposed on the power electrode AXE and spaced apart from the first common electrode CE1 (annotated Fig. 5: CE1, CE2, AXE, paragraph 0093),
and wherein the first common electrode CE1 contacts the side surface of the second electrode layer PAS_P (annotated Fig. 5: CE1, PAS_P).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim fails to disclose the display device of claim 5, wherein the power electrode further includes: at least one fourth electrode layer disposed on the third electrode layer; and at least one fifth electrode layer disposed on the fourth electrode layer, and wherein a side surface of the third electrode layer protrudes from a side surface of the fourth electrode layer.
However, Su et al. teaches wherein the power electrode 56, 31, 40, further includes: at least one fourth electrode layer 41 disposed on the third electrode layer 31_2; and at least one fifth electrode layer 42 disposed on the fourth electrode layer 41, and wherein a side surface of the third electrode layer 31_2 protrudes from a side surface of the fourth electrode layer 41 (see annotated Fig. 8: 56, 31_1, 31_2, 41, 42, paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kim and Su et al. in order to have the power electrode further include at least one fourth electrode layer disposed on the third electrode layer; and at least one fifth electrode layer disposed on the fourth electrode layer, and wherein a side surface of the third electrode layer protrudes from a side surface of the fourth electrode layer. Doing so would enable the multiple electrode layers to individually serve various functions such improve adhesion, optical transparency and charge injection.
Regarding Claim 11, Su et al. teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein at least one of the first, second and third electrode layers 56, 31 includes a metal (paragraph 0100).
Regarding Claim 12, Su et al. teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein at least one of the first, second and third electrode layers includes a transparent conductive oxide (paragraph 0106).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches the display device of claim 5, wherein at least one of the first, second and third electrode layers includes an organic material (Kim in paragraph 0111 teaches the second electrode layer PAS_P maybe an organic material).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20230207734 A1) teaches a display device comprising a power electrode including multiple electrode layers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/12/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights